The irrefutable, unequivocal, non-global warming trend continues.
As these graphs reveal, the latest NOAA temperature dataset, through August 31, 2013, confirms that the U.S. and its major crop regions are experiencing a cooling trend. (click on graphs to enlarge)
Note, this has taken place despite the largest 15-year production of human CO2 emissions, ever. Contrary to every single IPCC and U.S. climate model.
Update clarification: The above plots from the NOAA web site are based on moving 12-month periods ending in August (each 12-month period starts with a year's September temperature and ends with the following year's August temperature).
So...what is the cost of reducing global temperatures by a measly one-fourth of one degree?
Well, as can be seen in the adjacent image, it's a ludicrously gargantuan cost for maybe, a tiny, and barely measurable global temperature benefit.
What's the cost of reducing global temperatures to their 1850 level? Go to this simple estimator and enter '0.85' in the second third (from top) yellow box (cell). That will produce a rough estimate of how much it would cost in today's dollars using available technology means.
This simple cost estimator is based on the actual HadCRUT4 annual global temperatures and estimates of historical CO2 emission tons. By knowing this basic information, it is possible to calculate (using plain arithmetic) an approximate value for an increase in temperature caused by a single tonne of CO2.
Indeed, nothing fancy. But it does the job well enough to allow further estimations as to how many CO2 tonnes it takes to change global temperature a specific amount. Then it's just a matter of multiplying all those tonnes (billions to trillions) by a dollar cost/tonne.
With that explained, this estimator allows for two different cost scenarios associated with different approaches to future CO2 reduction.
One method of reduction requires the actual removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, which still appears to be far from viable, either economically and technically - read more here. The cost of this approach is not really known, thus 'C3' used a figure of $500/CO2 tonne, which can easily be changed in the estimator tool.
The other method of reduction is future CO2 emission avoidance. This method is typified by making buildings and vehicles more energy efficient; using renewable energy sources; and/or using natural gas and nuclear instead of coal. We used a figure of $75/tonne that is likely too low, but it also can easily be changed when using the estimator.
By playing with this estimation tool, it quickly makes one aware of those truly stubborn climate facts: regardless of the politics of global warming, the economic and technical costs of lowering future global temperatures are astronomical for producing such a measly impact - ie, benefit.
Adjacent is an image of a simple future temperature change estimator that is a complement to the CO2 mitigation calculator discussed here.
This estimator simply uses known empirical evidence (i.e. global CO2 emissions, CO2 ppm levels and global annual temperatures) from 1850 to 2012.
Using this 'weird trick' of estimating temperature change by only working with past empirical evidence allowed this cheapo estimator tool to produce a potential global temperature increase guesstimate of +0.55°C +0.45°C, for the span of 1960 to 2012 (update: corrected typo).
That estimate compares very favorably to the actual temperature increase that occurred: +0.50°C (annual HadCRUT4 global).
And what did the fancy NASA/Hansen multi-billion climate simulation model predict for that same period, 1960 to 2012? Approximately a +1.17°C increase, nowhere close to reality.
To use this simple tool to generate 'quick & dirty' estimates of future temps, go here. (This tool does not predict - it approximates a rough estimate that establishes a CO2, global warming reality starting point.)
Note1: The simple estimator allow two different means to calculate future temp changes.....by either inputting a desired future CO2 ppm level or by inputting a desired per year growth of ppm levels.
The newest IPCC climate change report is soon to be published and it is sure to include, again, grossly wrong climate model predictions of global temperature change, along with misleading cost impacts concerning any CO2 mitigation schemes.
These forthcoming IPCC misrepresentations can be compared to what is likely to happen, given the ample historical evidence at hand. For example:
•What is the cost of cutting U.S. 2012 CO2 emissions by 20%? •What's the impact on global temperature for such a reduction? •What about a 10% global cut - across the board - from the 2012 level of emissions?
The image on the left shows those resulting costs and impacts associated with respective per cent reductions.
But that's just an image. You can do better.
Use this calculator to accomplish a 'quick & dirty' estimate of impacts from hypothetical CO2 reduction schemes. The calculator will allow you to change the essential parameters (those in the yellow boxes), thus providing insight to how little we can really impact temperature change and the ludicrously high cost of attempting to do so.
This simple calculator is based on the known information about global CO2 emissions and HadCRUT4 annual (calendar year-end) global temperatures. Since the source of the global CO2 emissions only starts with 1965, that is the base year for all the simple calculator's math.
As a result, with 48 years (1965 through 2012) of data we know the following:
1. How much the global temperature (HadCRUT4) changed over 48 years.
2. The amount of CO2 emission tons that were produced over 48 years.
3. Then taking this information and using fundamental arithmetic, one can thus calculate the very small fraction of temperature change that is caused by a single ton of CO2, over the last 48 years.
That's what the calculator does.
Have at it. Decent ballpark estimates are achievable with this simple calculator and it didn't cost the taxpayers a single penny.
In fact, using the most basic math that the calculator employs, it produces better estimates of temperature change than the multi-billion dollar super computer climate models (more on that in a later post).
Update: Instead of using a global per cent CO2 emission reduction in the bottom calculator, a country per cent cut (or even a U.S. state per cent cut) can be used instead. Go here to determine country/state per cents.
Mainstream journalism continues in its death spiral as it loses public appeal, primarily due to biased "reporting" and outright misrepresentation about important policy debates.
When the historians decades from now do an objective analysis of how American mainstream journalism self-destructed, classic examples to be studied will be the activist/advocacy science journalists who willfully ignore empirical evidence in order to push their preferred political agenda.
The good news? The average American now pretty much ignores these bullsheeeeters.
The IPCC, NOAA, NASA, the EPA and other agencies promoting catastrophic global warming hope politicians and the public don't realize the significance of the fundamental physics.
Simply stated, the more CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the less influence CO2 has on global temperatures - it's a logarithmic thing.
All climate scientists know this. It's the actual hard physics. (Btw, that "positive" feedback thingy about CO2's "tipping point" impact? That's actually soft science - quasi-speculative, not hard physics.)
The adjacent chart though depicts the factual reality about the ever smaller impact of growing levels of CO2.
The reddish columns represent a plot of global temperature sensitivity to CO2. Specifically, they represent 60-year changes in global temperature divided by the corresponding 60-year change in atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) - a ratio.
The bright red curve is a simple 20-period average of that ratio, which has been declining since the 1950's. Recall that it is the IPCC that states categorically that modern "dangerous" warming started in the 1950s with the growth of industrial/consumer CO2 emissions.
Finally, the rapid growth of total atmospheric CO2 levels is shown by the black dots.
When it's all put together, per the IPCC, the red columns should be gaining in height as the years pass due to the accumulation of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere grows. Taller columns means that the ever increasing amounts of emissions are causing an even greater temperature change.
Clearly, the empirical evidence reveals that as atmospheric CO2 levels have grown, the impact on 60-year temperature changes has shrunk. From a high in the 1950s, to a very low impact as of 2012 (see blue column).
In summary, it's these stubborn climate facts that expose the invalidity/weakness of the AGW alarmist hypothesis. Sure, CO2 has an impact on temperatures but its maximum impact was decades ago and it is shrinking.
As human CO2 emissions continue to increase in the future, the resultant global warming will be smaller and smaller, and will continue to be overwhelmed by natural climate variation.
Note: Excel used to plot datasets. Ratio is simply the 60-year change in annual HadCRUT4 temperatures divided by the 60-year change in annual atomspheric CO2 levels. Dataset sources.
In a nutshell, the UN's IPCC's obsession and idiocy about non-existent catastrophic global warming begets the biofuel/ethanol idiocy.
"Getting rid of biofuel programs would cut Europe’s food costs in half by
2020, and lower global food prices by 15 percent. That’s according to a
new report, commissioned by the EU’s own Joint Research Center (JRC),
released ahead of a critical European Parliament..."
Grain for cars raises world food prices for the impoverished by 15% - that's a humanitarian crime that only wealthy elites can envision and be excited about.
The empirical evidence is irrefutable, no longer debatable.
These 20 studies confirm that the known Northern Hemisphere natural climate change periods, referred to as the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming, the Dark Ages and the Roman Period, also had significant impacts on the Southern Hemisphere.
In all cases, across both hemispheres, the large, natural climate changes took place without any human CO2 influence.
This means that natural climate change is caused by other factors that are of either earthly or (and) cosmic/solar origins.
The global warming alarmist community has had to embarrassingly resort to the lamest of all fear-mongering refrains: "It's the warmest _________" (fill in the blank with decade, year, month, week, day, hour or whatever).
#1. There's been a 'rebound' warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA). Per history, this current, natural warming rebound has been unexceptional and could actually last another 100 years - it's happened before, go figure.
#2. As the adjacent chart reveals, the 60 years prior to 1950 had a sturdy per century warming trend of +0.79 degrees, which reflects that natural rebound since the LIA.
#3. As the chart also shows, the modern warming 60-year trend, from the start of the 1950's, was enhanced to a +1.06 degree per century trend - specifically, a +0.27°C added to the already existing rebound warming trend of +0.79°.
#4. Using a 6th order polynomial fitted trend, it's clear that a recovery warming trend started in the mid-to-late 1890s, after some prior sporadic sputtering. And it has not stopped since. Along the way the trend has been enhanced by human forces: CO2 emissions, black carbon soot, urban heat island effects and climate altering land-use impacts.
So, in essence, since 1890 we had 60 years of warming then followed by another 60 years of "modern" warming from 1950 on.
Time to put this together......really, this is not difficult to conceptualize - we've had at least 120 years of warming, with some sporadic ups/downs along the way.
We are not talking brain surgery here.
That being the case, it is obvious, with a very high likelihood, that future time periods will also be "warmer" or the "warmest" - a simple repeat from the known trend over the past 120 years.
Let's summarize: Next month, or next year or the next decade is likely to be warmer due to the natural warming rebound since the LIA. Duh.
To reiterate, this natural, built-in, dominating LIA-rebound warming trend will continue regardless of the added impacts of greenhouse gases and etc.
Thus, it is extremely lame for alarmists to fear-monger about "warmest" since it happens naturally; it is also lame to imply that CO2 is responsible for
the "warmest" anything, since natural climate change basically dictates it; and, it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the modern +1.06°C trend (only a 0.92° increase by 2100AD)
at the end of 2012 is "dangerous" or an indicator of an imminent crisis.
Note: Annual HadCRUT4 data used in above Excel chart here. Trends are not predictions nor forecasts.
The Guardian has literally been at the forefront of pushing the unsubstantiated, fear-mongering meme that the current CO2 "caused" global warming was rapidly accelerating and dangerous to civilization's survival.
As the adjacent suggests, The Guardian is finally coming clean with its readers and admitting that global warming is not really happening and a serious debate is presently taking place as to why. Good.
The Guardian joins an ever growing list of mainstream press outlets and pro-alarmist warming web sites making the same forced admission - essentially, that global warming went AWOL.....ergo, it's not dangerous.
A partial list includes:
The New York Times, the BBC, NPR, The Economist, ClimateCentral
"The 5-year mean global temperature has
been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability
and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing." - NASA Scientist,
"In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just
0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero.
This is a serious scientific problem..." - Scientist/Meteorologist Hans
Independent , July 2013
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a
pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially
over the last 10 to 15 years,” - Reading University, Scientist Rowan Sutton
This 'epic fail' is especially embarrassing since it is entirely due to the mainstream journalists doing nothing more than 'press release' science. Instead, if they analyzed the empirical evidence the way skeptical bloggers do, then the embarrassment would likely be less acute, or not even exist.
After pointing out for years the obvious empirical evidence about "global warming", skeptics are finally vindicated - the mainstream press, science journals and now major governments concur.
What has changed for NPR and others?
One would guess a real world realization.
After no significant global warming for some 20+ years, the "elites" are finally being embarrassed by the empirical evidence, which doesn't comport with their favorite unicorn science-fantasy.
Let's be candid, stubborn facts are not charitable. Their global warming fantasy simply was unable to withstand the power of empirical, factual evidence.
Putting aside the joyful skeptics' collective response ("told ya so..."), what does this really mean?
Essentially, the "consensus", the "experts", those "97% of climate scientists" were absolutely 100% wrong.How so?
Okay, let's review what has been said and implied....
Modern global warming is: "Civilization ending"; a "climate crisis"; "dangerous"; "rapid"; "accelerating"; "unequivocal"; "unprecedented"; "irrefutable"; "indisputable"; "irreversible"; and, of course, the ever familiar "man-made".
Everyone now agrees that the '97%' were unambiguously wrong. And adding to their misery, NPR and other "elites" are now admitting that natural climatic forces have simply overwhelmed the lame impact of CO2.
Let's be charitable as possible: "In your face, morons." "Remember, '97%' belief is not science - that's only a popularity contest." Also..."be more skeptical, please."
One didn't have to be a brain surgeon to figure out a long time ago that Obamacare was going to hurt American wallets, plus be a gigantic, pain-in-the-arse, bureaucratic nightmare.
Then again, you didn't have to be a IPCC climate scientist to figure out that global warming/climate change from human influences was not an existential threat to civilization.
Of course, as we are imminently aware, the stuck-on-stupid Democrat Party gave us Obamacare, and they still are pushing draconian regulations on American businesses and consumers to battle the evil CO2-unicorn.
Thank you, Obama, and your party comrades in the Senate and House too!
It's been a very bad week so far for the alarmists devoted to the global warming and climate change hysteria.
Their green fundamentalist, anti-CO2 religion looks about ready to explode in their collective faces.
First, the World Federation of Scientists (10,000 strong) announced that there is no crisis or threat to human civilization from climate change.
Second, a new study was released that provides additional proof that since the late 1970s, the Earth has received much more solar energy than previously thought...that solar impact would be multiple times more powerful than the concurrent human CO2 impact.
Third, another new study determines that CO2's impact has been minor compared to the impact of a natural cooling Pacific Ocean, due to a natural oscillation named ENSO - as the prominent climate scientist said: "My mind has been blown by a new paper..."
And fourth, in another new study, scientists confirmed that climate models way overestimated global warming for the last 20 years because.....wait for it.....the models are likely unable to simulate natural climate variation correctly.
Ramez Naam is today's climate denier-liar-BSer. He does an interview (click on above image) based entirely on fear-mongering, completely void of scientific fact and slickly distorts the truth.
His comments that Hurricane Sandy and recent forest fires are attributable to climate change would earn him the infamous 'bullshite' button that Al Gore has won so often.
His mentioning of climate studies, which are dependent on failed climate models, is a pathetic joke designed to sucker the low information gullible investor.
Obviously, he's a climate reality denier who must deny the following since he's pushing the CO2-unicorn fantasy:
The empirical evidence and research that Ramez Naam denies:
Natural climate change that never stops
has been documented in thousands of peer reviewed
studies, and the evidence keeps building that climate change is the normal
condition...(Ramez Naam denies this)
The natural warming, a climate change
rebound from the immensely cold Little Ice Age continues and likely will continue, because that's what natural
climate change does regardless of CO2 levels...(Ramez Naam denies this)
The IPCC and the world's major climate
agencies' CO2-centric climate models have failedabysmally at global temperature predictions, per
the actual scientific evidence...(Ramez
Naam denies this)
In contrast to the sophisticated
climate model predictions of runaway ("tipping point") global
warming, in reality, real-world global warming, as measured by satellites, has
disappeared for over 16 years despite the gargantuan increases in CO2
emissions...(Ramez Naam denies this)
New climate research determined that
the IPCC climate models prediction of an imminent huge sea level rise, thus flooding
coastal regions and producing 50 million climate refugees, was drastically wrong - instead, the current sea level trend is a measly 6-9 inches per century...(Ramez Naam denies this)
Meteorologists and scientists (and
weather/climate models) are unable to predict short-term weather events/disasters and long-term climate change...(Ramez Naam
Prior to the 1990's (pre-350ppm
atmospheric levels) the world suffered year after year major and extreme weather-related disasters...(Ramez Naam
Scientists are unable to connect human-caused climate change (versus natural
climate change and natural weather incidents) to disaster losses...(Ramez Naam denies this)
Researchers confirmed that increasing
costs of disasters is not associated with an increase of greenhouse
gases...(Ramez Naam denies this)
Scientists have determined, globally,
weather related losses have not increased since
1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25%)...(Ramez
Naam denies this)
Scientists have determined that insured
catastrophe losses have not increased as a
proportion of GDP since 1960...(Ramez Naam denies this)
Peer reviewed research has found that
hurricane, tornado, flood and drought disaster frequencies have not increased globally, or in the U.S. ...(Ramez
Naam denies this)
Hurricanes have not increased in the US in
frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. The same
holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970 (when data allows
for a global perspective)...(Ramez Naam denies this)
Floods have not increased in the US in
frequency or intensity since at least 1950. Flood losses as a percentage
of US GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940...(Ramez Naam denies
Tornadoes have not increased in frequency,
intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to
suggest that they have actually declined...(Ramez Naam denies this)
Drought has “for the most part, become
shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the
last century.” Globally, “there has been little change in drought over the
past 60 years...(Ramez Naam denies this)
A Llyod's of London global survey of corporate executives regarding
risks their companies face in 2013 ranked 'climate change' as one of the
smallest risks, just less than 'ocean pirate' risk and a bit more than 'space
weather' risk...(Ramez Naam denies this)
Ramez Naam is a smart guy. Why does someone like Naam reject the scientific and empirical evidence? Climate change history? The peer reviewed research? Just what the heck makes Ramez tick?
Well, watch the
video (click the image above) and you decide. Hmmm.....I wonder if he's long in renewable
energy positions, eh?
The laughably named 'Skeptical Science' site (a climate/warming doomsday site) provides a a handy trend calculator, which confirms whether a linear temperature trend is actually 'real' - or in statistical parlance, is the trend 'statistically significant' or not, using the widely accepted 95% confidence interval test (2 sigma).
For example, by entering '1989.58' for August 1989 and '2013.5' for July 2013, the calculator determines the temperature/century trend (purple circle) and the 'uncertainty' (green circle) associated with that trend.
To be statistically significant or 'real', per the Skeptical Science experts, the trend (purple) has to be larger than the uncertainty (green). As can be seen, for the period chosen in this example, the 24 years (288 months) ending July 2013, the "global warming" trend is not statistically significant.
That means, because of the large uncertainty amount, the 'real' warming trend could actually be much smaller, even '0'.
So, in a nutshell, the pro-Alarmist site that constantly proclaims AGW-doomsday confirms that for 24 years the reported "global warming" may be a statistical fluke - not 'real'.
Note: This example uses the RSS dataset, which is the global temperature anomalies for the lower atmosphere. For a complete analysis of other temperature dataset trends, go here.
Across the world, anti-CO2 fundamentalists and global warming alarmists have pushed governments to divert billions of taxpayer monies into useless "green" energy projects that are expensive and unreliable generators of power - plus being a honeypot of corruption.
The wind project shown here delivers a mind-numbingly small amount of power - only 0.001% of its capacity - and not much in the way of those fabulous "green" jobs, unless dressing up like a cow is part of the brilliant green career plan.
Instead of growing the economic pie for everyone, green alarmists have literally shrunk the pie, impoverishing millions.
Next time you hear someone bemoan the lack of good jobs, tell them to thank the anti-growth greens and warming alarmists because that's where the blame lies
Obamacare is like a plane crash, that just keeps happening every single day. And it's just not companies like Delta that are crashing and burning because of this health care disaster.
Unions, the huge backers of Obama, are trying to bail out before their health care planes corkscrew into terra firma.
"The Nevada State AFL-CIO has joined the chorus of unions slamming Obamacare, claiming that certain provisions of the law could end up destroying multi-employer union health plans and criticizing the administration for not addressing its concerns...Several unions, including UNITE HERE, the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Teamsters, have already voiced their concerns, sending a letter to Democratic leaders in Congress warning that the law as it now stands could have dire consequences for workers by undermining their healthcare plans, known as Taft-Hartley plans."
Why do Americans think so little of the mainstream press?
The New York Times epitomizes the principal reason why Americans hold journalism in such low esteem.
The public expects objective reporting on the critical issues of energy and climate. But that's not what they get from the NYT and other mainstream outlets.
Instead, as Bjorn Lomberg documents, this NYT's reporter is more interested in being an advocate, an anti-CO2 activist instead of reporting the actual facts and known science. He delivers a form of corrupted journalism, and that's why he needs to employ catastrophic scenarios with exaggerations, myths, urban legends, distortions, lies and whatever else it takes to scare the public.
global HadCRUT4 dataset, updated through July 31, 2013, reveals little
warming over 15 years despite the huge influx of human CO2 emissions and
the subsequent large growth in atmospheric CO2 levels
(click on charts to enlarge)
The chart on left plots the monthly HadCRUT anomalies and monthly atmospheric levels over the last 15 years (180 months).
indicated on the chart, the linear trend for temperatures means a tiny
increase in global temperatures of a trivial +0.58 degrees by 2100AD, if
this trend were to continue (it won't).
In addition, as the R2
on the chart reveals, there has been a very weak relationship between
CO2 levels and temperature anomalies - suggesting an extremely small, to
an almost non-existent, climate sensitivity to CO2.
The chart on the right, in contrast, examines global temperature change and its relationship to CO2 in a different manner.
case of temperature, the right chart plots the the 15-year difference in
monthly anomalies. So, for example, one of the plot points is the
difference (increase/decrease) between the month of January 1850 and
January 1865 - this 15-year difference calculation is done for each month, all the way through July 2013.
The dark blue curve represents the 36-month moving average of the 15-year differences of the temperature anomalies.
15-year difference is also plotted for monthly atmospheric CO2 levels,
represented by the black curve - actually, a 36-month moving average of
the CO2 differences. (To simplify the chart, used an Excel option to
just show the 36-mth average.)
it is very clear that the 15-year differences (changes) in temperature
anomalies have little, if any, relationship to the 15-year changes in
CO2 levels. In fact, the R2 between temperature changes and
CO2 changes is absurdly low - again, suggesting a climate sensitivity to
CO2 as being rather low.
Currently, global warming on a monthly basis is immeasurable and will
amount to very little by year 2100, if this trend continues.
2. The empricial evidence is unequivocal and irrefutable, global warming is not accelerating.
3. The increasing absolute amounts of CO2 have had a small influence, at best, on temperatures during the last 15 years.
Longer-term changes in CO2 levels appear not to have even a minor impact
on long-term temperature changes - maybe a trivial impact, though.
Note: Linear trends are not predictions. Original data used with Excel to produce the plots, trends, correlations and averages. Previous temperature/climate charts.
Using sediment cores from two lakes in the Qaidam Basin of the northern Tibetan Plateau, Chinese researchers reconstructed temperatures back some 2,000 years.
Their research was unequivocal: modern warming has been cooler than past warming periods. They also confirmed that the climate naturally made shifts between warm/cool regimes. Plus, the climate shifts appear to be associated with solar activity.
Note: Historical temperature charts and previous climate-history articles.
Zilkha is a company that uses trees from American forests, turns them into pellets, then ships them to the UK and other EU countries to be burned for energy.
Often referred to as renewable 'biomass' energy, it is a "green" travesty.
Zilkha profits from this green insanity literally by promoting the chopping down of Canadian and American forests to "save the world" from climate change.
By doing so, this form of "green" energy actually produces more CO2 emissions than coal.
So, Zilkha wants to sell more tree pellets to the EU countries, thus they hired the disgraced global warming alarmist, Chris Huhne. He is a former, very highly placed, UK political elite who fell from grace when caught lying to authorities. He was recently released from prison and then quickly hired by Zilkha.
Zilkha is going to pay him $155,000 per year to sell more of their pellets across the EU - he is expected to work 2 days per week for his salary.
Isn't green cronyism (green corruption?), hypocrisy grand!
Proving Americans' assessment correct, the National Geographic is caught pushing obvious "science" B.S. about sea level rise.
Why the mainstream believes they can blatantly fear-monger over climate change and global warming, with gross distortions, in the internet age is, ..... well ..... exceptionally stupid.
This National Geographic cover is a perfect example of climate-BSing that Americans don't need in a serious debate about science - a National Enquirer's level of sensationalism in a "science journal" is simply worthless.
Note: Per the NYC tide gauge trend, by year 2100, sea levels near the statue will have risen by some 9.6 inches - the National Geographic cover is a gross distortion, visual-lies one could say, designed to mislead. For more accurate information, a variety of empirical evidence sea level rising charts.