Mind Blowing Sea Level Fraud At National Geographic

13 Responses to Mind Blowing Sea Level Fraud At National Geographic

1. Morgan Wright says:

   September 27, 2015 at 11:42 am

   http://www.hyzercreek.com/BrokenCueStick.jpg

   Look at the broken cue stick, National Geographic’s contribution to climate change sporting goods.

   Reply
2. Gail Combs says:

   September 27, 2015 at 1:17 pm

   Note in the chart of the Holocene sea level rise the red cross on the top right (Santa Catarina) moves the line through the points from a decreasing sea level trend to an increasing sea level trend.

   This is a critical study because it is the one that yanks the WIKI sea level chart (adjusted of course) from a falling sea level to a slowly rising sea level. (The area is tectonically stable and unglaciated so there is no need for adjustments.)

   https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Holocene_Sea_Level.png

   This figure shows sea level rise since the end of the last glacial episode based on data from Fleming et al. 1998, Fleming 2000, & Milne et al. 2005. These papers collected data from various reports and adjusted them for subsequent vertical geologic motions, primarily those associated with post-glacial continental and hydroisostatic rebound. — WIKI

   Again Santa Catarina is that dark red cross above the pack on the right. Remove it and sea level is actually falling for the last 2,000 years.

   The Quaternary Geological History of the Santa Catarina Southeastern Region (Brazil) 1999

   The first part discusses drilling in several locations and analyzing samples. They mention dating prior to that was guesses. “…. A drilling campaign done in the domain permitted the sampling of material for 14C datings, and the obtained data confirmed some previously assumed ages. The sequence of events, that originated the Holocene deposits, has been also reconstructed through drilling and 14C dating of the collected peat and shell samples…”

   In the body of the text is this:

   THE HOLOCENE DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEM
   Partially abutted against the Pleistocene barrier island/lagoonal system III, there is the Holocene depositional system. This unit is attributable to the Santos Transgression of Suguio & Martin (1978), along the State of São Paulo coastline, or to the Last Transgression of Bittencourt et al. (1979) along the State of Bahia coastline, being similar to the barrier island/lagoonal system IV of Villwock et al. (1986), along the State of Rio Grande do Sul coastline.

   This system is related to the post-glacial transgressive episode whose culmination stage was attained about 5.1 ky BP, when a barrier island alignment was formed parallel to the shoreline, while drainage net was drowned. The subsequent regressive episode promoted the barrier island progradation following the lagoonal basin silting.

   The paleoshorelines limited by ancient cliffs carved within Pleistocene terraces, presently representing the inner limit of the Holocene terrace, shows that this sea-level reached about 4m above the present one. Several terraces situated in different altitudes, and truncation of past morphological features nowadays observed on Holocene deposits, as well as along present lagoonal margins suggest that small scale sea-level oscillations occurred during the last 5 ky….

   Construction of Holocene wave-built terrace – The sea-level drop following the 5.1 ky BP culmination stage originated the wave-built terrace abutted against the original barrier island, with the consequent shoreline progradation in general as regressive beach ridges. Several truncations of these beach-ridge systems, as well as many levels of marginal lagoonal terraces suggest that the dominantly regressive trend was momentarily interrupted by minor transgressive episodes. The radiocarbon ages of the natural shell beds indicate that between 5 and 3 ky BP the relative sea-level was higher than today, with consequent expansion of the lagoonal areas frequently transformed into bays, and warmer paleotemperatures were favourable for great proliferation of mollusks in the area (Mendes 1993; Pitoni 1993).

   “…a relative sea-level change curve for the last 7 ky in the area Florianópolis-Jaguaruna (Fig. 7) is outlined…” Note the curve at the very top of the post.

   https://i0.wp.com/www.scielo.br/img/fbpe/aabc/v72n2/0025img17.gif

   This study shows a sea level highstand ~ 4 meters above the present level about ~5000 years ago. With sea level oscillating since then. Not only has the sea levels dropped since the Holocene Optimum the evidence shows that “warmer paleotemperatures were favourable for great proliferation of mollusks in the area” (Santa Catarina Brazil is at latitude 27.2500°S. )

   Two more studies showing falling sea level.

   Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits

   ….backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes…..reconstructed for the last 8000 years….The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka….

   Translation the sea level was up to 1.5 meters higher than today in a tectonically stable area ~5000 years ago to 2000 years ago.

   Late Quaternary highstand deposits of the southern Arabian Gulf: a record of sea-level and climate change

   Abstract
   …..It has therefore been necessary to infer the ages of these sediments by a comparison of their stratigraphy and elevation with deposits known from other parts of the world. We regard this approach as valid because the southern Gulf coastline lacks evidence for significant widespread neotectonic uplift,…….
   …..Widespread evidence exists for a Holocene sea level higher than at present in the southern Arabian Gulf, indicating that it peaked at 1–2 m above present level, c. 5.5 ka bp…….

   This study shows a sea level highstand ~1 to 2 meters above the present level about ~5500 years ago.

   All three studies from around the globe show FALLING sea levels! WHERE does that ‘adjusted’ graph show that fall of 1 to 2 meters? Instead if you look closely the graph shows a ~1.5 meter RISE instead of a fall since 5000 years ago! That is an ‘Adjustment’ of 3 or more meters to data from tectonically stable areas. Lysenkoism at it’s finest.

   Reply
3. Scottish Sceptic says:

   September 27, 2015 at 1:44 pm

   What I love about climate is that day after day after day, the evidence keeps mounting against them. So, sooner or later even idiots like Obama will realise that these fraudsters are just that.

   And thankfully, because of sites like this, they will not be able to claim “but no one said anything different” … which is what they’ve always said in the past when they controlled what could and could not be printed.

   Reply
4. Climatism says:

   September 27, 2015 at 1:49 pm

   Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
   And they want to jail people who question, or are ‘sceptical’ of whacko claims like this, and not the other way around?

   We live in truly bizarre and dangerous times.

   Reply
5. gator69 says:

   September 27, 2015 at 2:10 pm

   It’s not just National Geographic, it is now even more than a national pasttime, because it is a North American Union charter…

   As noted in an earlier post here, approximately 66% of the GHCN record is estimated after processing by the GHCN adjustment models. In the current GHCN data set, there are 226 unique country codes represented. Following are the top and bottom stewards of temperature data, by country, based on the frequency that the GHCN adjustment models replace their raw data with an estimated value.

   The top 10 countries with the most pristine temperature record:

   Country % Estimated
   DJIBOUTI 0.0%
   TROMELIN ISLAND (FRANCE) 0.0%
   QATAR 0.0%
   COCOS ISLANDS (AUSTRALIA) 0.0%
   WESTERN SAMOA / SAMOA 0.0%
   BELARUS 0.0%
   KAZAKHSTAN 0.0%
   ARGENTINE BASE IN ANTARCTICA 0.0%
   PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF YEMEN 0.4%
   MOLDOVA 1.0%

   The 10 bottom-feeding countries requiring the most adjustment are:

   Country % Estimated
   BARBADOS 97.8%
   CHRISTMAS ISLAND (AUSTRALIA) 95.7%
   NIUE (NEW ZEALAND) 95.6%
   CYPRUS 94.2%
   SOUTH GEORGIA (U.K.) 93.3%
   MACAU (PORTUGAL) 93.2%
   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 92.5%
   BERMUDA (U.K.) 92.3%
   BAHAMAS 92.2%
   CAPE VERDE 91.9%

   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/27/winners-and-losers-in-the-ghcn-estimation-derby/

   Reply
6. Steve Case says:

   September 27, 2015 at 3:30 pm

   This Title:
   “Why has an acceleration of sea level rise not been observed during the altimeter era?”
   Found at this link:
   http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2011/oral/02_Thursday/Splinter%203%20SCI/04%20Nerem%20ostst_2011_nerem.pdf
   Tells us that the acceleration of sea level rise has been negative since 1992.

   That presentation by Dr. Steve Nerem (He keeps the satellite data at Colorado U’ Sea Level Research Group) is a few years old now but it remains true.

   Anyone can download the data from CU’s web page
   http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2015_rel3/sl_ns_global.txt
   and do the acceleration calculation for themselves.

   Reply
7. 4TimesAYear says:

   September 27, 2015 at 8:01 pm

   Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.

   Reply
8. Tony says:

   September 27, 2015 at 8:57 pm

   Sydney, Australia. 6 cm per century … not that any of the local government nor local media want to share the truth.

   http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/no-dangerous-sea-level-rise-for-nsws.html

   Reply
9. juanmirre says:

   September 28, 2015 at 7:58 am

   Any of the hundreds of serious book on geology or oceanography written since 1899 will show you and explain thousands of examples of places were the stable sea level seems to rise or fall because the continental ground is subsiding or emerging. The arguments given by the #AGW and #AGWstooges are false and unscientific. More at:
   SEA LEVEL RISE NATGEOGRAPHIC http://wp.me/p5UsvC-3c
   SEA LEVEL RISE = http://wp.me/p5UsvC-2J

   Reply
   • Gail Combs says:

     September 28, 2015 at 9:50 am

     I started looking into the ‘adjustments’ due to post-glacial rebound and tectonic uplift (mountain building) and got side tracked into the censorship performed by NOAA/NASA.

     This is the chart censored:

     https://web.archive.org/web/20060505184553/http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/isostasy1/uplift.gif

     A new paper was written in 1998 and that is now the basis for the MODELED post-glacial rebound equation used by NOAA/NASA
     This is the paper:
     Near-field hydro-isostasy: the implementation of a revised sea-level equation (The authors have the art of Bafflegab down pat and do a pretty good run-on sentence too.)

     Summary
     We describe how the existing sea-level equation incorrectly predicts the change in sea level (and thus the ocean load) in ice-covered, subgeoidal geographic regions during periods of deglaciation. We go on to present a new sea-level equation that overcomes this problem and we describe how this equation can be solved in a gravitationally self- consistent manner by employing a well-known spectral technique. Application of the new theory to predict relative sea-level (rsl) histories and present-day, 3-D, solid surface deformation rates in northeastern Canada (based on a single earth model characterized by a lithospheric thickness of 100 km and upper and lower mantle viscosities of 5×1020 and 5×1021 Pa s, respectively) demonstrates that a significant error is introduced when the original theory is employed to predict the oceanic component of the surface load. Predictions of rsl curves show a discrepancy of ?40 per cent at sites where data have been obtained and employed to constrain models of earth viscosity structure and ice- sheet histories. This error will significantly bias estimates of mantle viscosity structure and ice thicknesses that are based on the original theory. In addition, predictions of 3-D deformation rates differ by up to 25 per cent in some regions and so future applications that employ these data to constrain models of the glacial isostatic adjustment process should adopt the improved sea-level theory. In contrast, estimates of inverse decay times from the predicted rsl curves are insensitive (to within the observational error) to the improvement in the surface load introduced by the new theory. Thus, viscosity structure inferences based on this parametrization and the original sea-level equation are unaffected by the error in the ocean load. Finally,the new theory predicts a eustatic (i.e. globally uniform) rise in sea level over the postglacial period that is ?11 m lower than that determined via the original theory. Therefore, estimates of the global ice budget at the last glacial maximum based on far-field rsl data and the original sea-level theory will be too small by ?10 per cent.

     This is from NASA: Glacial Isostatic Adjustment: A Survey of Recent Studies

     And finally the fly in the ointment for these models is the new finding of thin hot crust under the oceans off Africa and off South America.

     (If some one has the link to that image, please post, I lost my link.)

     Reply
10. AndyG55 says:

    September 28, 2015 at 10:17 am

    Had some fun today..

    Was walking along the beachfront and this obvious greenie was looking at the rock shelf that had been exposed by the heavy swells over the last week..

    He said something about “climate change” causing it..

    so I replied.. “yes, the sand is usually much higher than that.” 😉

    poor guy didn’t know how to respond 🙂

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:

      September 28, 2015 at 1:19 pm

      Bad boy Andy, go lie down…. (snicker)

      Reply
11. Billy Liar says:

    September 29, 2015 at 12:04 am

    That Nat Geo graph says basically – anything can happen in the next 85 years. What’s the point of that? Is it meant to show that years of accumulated ignorance have been unable to reveal to us how sea level will progress in the future?

    Reply