Like the West Side Highway in Manhattan, the peer review process in climate science had drowned by the year 2008.
A new article in Nature claims that sea level is rising much faster in the Northeastern US than on the rest of the planet.
WASHINGTON — From Cape Hatteras, N.C., to just north of Boston, sea levels are rising much faster than around the globe, putting one of the world’s most costly coasts in danger of flooding, government researchers report.
U.S. Geological Survey scientists call the 600-mile swath a “hot spot” for climbing sea levels caused by global warming. Along the region, the Atlantic Ocean has risen at an annual rate three to four times faster than the global average since 1990, according to the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Rise in E. Coast sea levels exceeds global average | Nation | News from Fort Worth, Dall…
Had anyone with half a brain peer-reviewed this paper, they would have looked at the satellite data and realized that there has been little or no sea level rise in that region over the last decade. Much of the rise in sea level which the authors think they are seeing, is actually due to subsidence of the land.
It is a well known fact that global warming causes land to subside, and to increase, among the other 372 things it does….
It is hard to believe that these AGW advocates can keep parroting this garbage when the evidence is so overwhelmingly against them. I guess they just don’t know how foolish they look to be punked by lies. Hahahaha I just have to laugh that they don’t have brains enough to examine all the evidence but just jump at the first thing that seems to agree with the position they want to take. Global warming hahahaha , it looks like we might have to worry about global cooling. Now that is scary. But I don’t think that will be all that bad either as man , and every thing else , is pretty adaptable. Some guy, I forget who, my apologies, wrote a book titled Don’t sell your coat.
Harold Ambler
Over at Climate Etc. there is a concern that errors were made in a paper that the IPCC relied heavily on to support its supposition that climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is 3 degC. It appears that the scientist in question, Forest, is unable/unwilling to provide the original data used in his study, to a scientist (the one that found errors in Steig’s Antarctic paper) that would like to verify Forest’s findings.
The IPCC has been found to be lax in its past reports by inserting large amounts of grey literature provided by eco-activist groups and palming it off as peer reviewed. But rather than tighten up the process the IPCC will now fully embraced post-modern climate science and drop the pretense that their work is all peer reviewed by using and treating grey literature as peer reviewed in AR5.
We have reached the point where evidence based science doesn’t matter anymore in climate science as enough activist scientists supported by powerful, monied political/financial interests and most media, are convinced that they have attained demigod status and are omnipotent in their modeling and no longer have to answer to anyone when their work is found to be flawed.
http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/12292931/2/stock-illustration-12292931-fortune-teller.jpg
@Sundance: I went over to Climate Etc and had a read of the post. If this indeed true (that is, a climate sensitivity of only 1C), that means feedbacks are negative, as a doubling of CO2 will produce about 1.2C of warming without any feedbacks. The AGW house of cards continues to crumble.
IMHO, the money quote from the post is:
“If I am right, then correct processing of the data used in Forest 2006 would lead to the conclusion that equilibrium climate sensitivity (to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is close to 1°C, not 3°C, implying that likely future warming has been grossly overestimated by the IPCC.”
http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/25/questioning-the-forest-et-al-2006-sensitivity-study/#more-8917
Maybe I’m missing something here, but isn’t sea level supposed to be…..level? How can one shore of the Atlantic be higher than the other? And how can they print an article on this topic without addressing that issue? I guess as long as there is a “consensus,” people will believe anything.
I should have said, “How can sea level at one shore of the Atlantic be higher than at another shore?
It’s apparent sea level. If the land is sinking it looks as though the sea level has gone up.
Peer review is a joke. If you are on the AGW gravy train where everyone jumps like a trained seal and says “its worse than we thought”, no one bothers to check the data.
I touched on this a bit yesterday at my blog, but, consider that the historical data for most of these places shows those values going up at the same pace for well over a hundred years.
Consider Battery Park. They have data going back to the late 1850′s, which shows a consistent 2.77mm a year. That’s about .91 inches per century. Which is consistent with the expected sea level rise during a warm period.
Yet, what does this say about the AGW theory? If global warming is causing sea rise, should we not see consistent sea rise around the world? Why do we much higher values in some places, like Virginia (4-6mm a year), than in places like NYC and Georgia? Why, just a little bit down the coast in NC, do we see values in the 2-3mm range?
Oh, and for reference, your hair can grow anywhere from 6-10 centimeters a year. That’s 60-100 millimeters. Perspective.