B-B-But Obama was supposed to have fixed that.
They must be using the same measuring stick Gilligan used to set his lobster traps with that the Professor used to measure the sea level in the lagoon......................
perhaps at a faster rate than previously thought,
perhaps he says....
lets base our entire future an a whole batch of these “perhapses”
Horse Hockey Puck!
Looks like we’re all gonna die...AGAIN!
Sea level used to be 20 to 30 feet higher some 9,000 years ago when global warming peaked.
I am so gullible. When all this sea-rise bunk started, I purchased inexpensive property between 1/4 and 1/2 mile from the ocean, hoping it would become ocean front property. I guess I got caught holding the bag. (just kidding)
SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer , is a rabid, drooling leftist. He is also the laughing stock of the entire scientific community.
Fascinating conclusion considering Antarctic sea ICD is at record level and that for every Glacier that is shrinking there are 3 that are growing.
I can assure the world that at Deltaville, Va, the sea water levels are exactly where they have been since 1966. Deltaville is on the a tidal creek attached to the Chesapeake Bay, which is attached to the Atlantic Ocean and all the other oceans.
So just where is this sea water rising?
B..Bu..But scrubama promised in his 2008 rat coronation speech that ocean levels would begin to fall once he was elected.
What gives?
Rising everywhere?
Nope.
Sinking in other places?
Yes.
Let’s see some NUMBERS, MSM.
You know, those things that drove idiots like you out of the STEM subjects and into journalism.
From a statistical significance perspective, comparing the period of 1990 to today vs. 1900 to 1990 is about the same as saying the sea level increased 2 times more rapidly today than it did yesterday. These people are complete jokes.
Sea level rising even while the satellite records state no global warming for 18 years. Now that is a shock. Obviously atmospheric temps had nothing to do with it.
“The new method uses statistical analysis and computer models to better simulate the areas in the gap.”
That says it all. They write programs in which their programmed assumptions bias the results from the computer models in favor of their assumptions and in the absence of hard empirical evidence. That is how they’ve been building the “global warming” agenda all along, filing in the gaps with their assumptions.
Would we build a spaceship today to “take advantage” of the mathematical assumptions in string theory? No. Why? String theory may be a neat mathematical construct in physics but it is without empirical evidence that it reflects the real - as opposed to the theoretical - construction of the universe. Yet we are supposed to behave differently when mere computer models of the as yet not fantastically understood climate suggest the sky is falling.