Not sure who's the bigger moron here, Brian Kahn or Cynthia Whatsherface.
This paragraph reads like a pseudo-scientific concept as filtered through the brain of a first grader.
By definition, "rebound," as it relates to glaciers, means the ground rises, and, relatively, the sea level falls, which is the direct opposite of what is being presented as science.
A serious disconnect between reality and activism.
That, and the fact that they now admit to making their analysis by using the thoroughly discredited computer models that have not even remotely proven themselves. Garbage in, garbage out.
Real scientists have forced the IPCC to cease and desist calling reults of computer models "predictions." You'd think that should make them go out and buy a little humility and anti-ignorance pills.
But, no, they now call them "extrapolations." Which the ignorant assume is a serious and wisdom-laden concept, when it actually means "SWAG."
Reading Mark Twain's proof that the length of the Mississippi River is relentlessly getting shorter is a funnier version of the snake oil these charlatans are trying to sell.
” By definition, “rebound,” as it relates to glaciers, means the ground rises, and, relatively, the sea level falls, which is the direct opposite of what is being presented as science.
A serious disconnect between reality and activism.”
Picture dropping a stone in a pond. The stone sets off ripples with the water first rising at the place you dropped the stone. However, the next “ring” of the wave has the water dropping. The net water level doesn’t change, you just have areas of rebound adjacent to areas of subsidence.
The earth under the icecap rebounded when the ice age ended. However, the earth in the next “ring” out, i.e NY, and parts of northern Europe, subsided.
Here’s a map.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PGR_Paulson2007_Rate_of_Lithospheric_Uplift_due_to_PGR.png
