Denying sea-level rise: How 100 centimeters divided the state of North Carolina | EARTH Magazine
By “empirical understanding” he means “extorting money from the public by means of junk science”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- D. Boss on “falsely labeling”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Bob G on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Bob G on Radical Communist Donald Harris
- Disillusioned on Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- Lasse on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
Steven,
Children just wont know what subsidence is…
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/40/E781.full
Global modeling of glacial isostasy (3) gives a rate of subsidence of approximately 1.3 mm/y. Direct GPS measurements indicate an even higher rate of subsidence of the regional proglacial forebulge (2). Finally, local tide gauge records have a 20th century rate of sea level rise of close to 4 mm/y (2), or approximately 2 mm/y higher than the global mean rate of sea level rise. To summarize, all these alternative estimates point to a substantially greater rate of subsidence than the 1 mm/y geologic estimate.
Claiming you can predict dramatic sea level rise by reference to a computer model you’ve just made up is usually called the “semi-empirical” approach – at least in the junk science sea level rise papers I’ve read.
It has been proven that it is impossible to write bad software.
Bad software? I didn’t know there was such a thing…
Thin Ice
http://thiniceclimate.org/
The puff piece on Earth magazine is riddled with errors and misstatements from top to bottom.
The title sets the stage: “Denying Sea Level Rise”. The fact is that no one in NC is denying SLR. The issue is whether there will be linear or accelerated SLR — but that is not what the title says.
I filed a complaint with the magazine’s editors. We’ll see what they do.
I’m astounded the warmists themselves presented that graph . How the hell do you extrapolate an exponential out of the short piece of noise they sketch . A linear extrapolation sucks about all the information there is out of it .
Congratulations to John Droz for being largely responsible for this success .
I think more people should write letters to the offending publications.
Remind them that debasing their integrity by publishing half truths and misleading nonsense will eventually have a cost.