Trump may doubt climate change, but Pentagon sees it as a ‘threat multiplier’

Naval Base Ventura County in southern California has lost about 400 feet of beach since the 1940s. The sea level at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the facility was built.

When I see a factually incorrect statement, then why should I believe anything else in the article? Over half the "rise" is due to subsidence.

This is from the USGS, but what the hell do they know about climate change.

Land Subsidence and Relative Sea-Level Rise in the Southern Chesapeake Bay Region

By Jack Eggleston and Jason Pope

The southern Chesapeake Bay region is experiencing land subsidence and rising water levels due to global sea-level rise; land subsidence and rising water levels combine to cause relative sea-level rise. Land subsidence has been observed since the 1940s in the southern Chesapeake Bay region at rates of 1.1 to 4.8 millimeters per year (mm/yr), and subsidence continues today. This land subsidence helps explain why the region has the highest rates of sea-level rise on the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Data indicate that land subsidence has been responsible for more than half the relative sea-level rise measured in the region. Land subsidence increases the risk of flooding in low-lying areas, which in turn has important economic, environmental, and human health consequences for the heavily populated and ecologically important southern Chesapeake Bay region. The aquifer system in the region has been compacted by extensive groundwater pumping in the region at rates of 1.5- to 3.7-mm/yr; this compaction accounts for more than half of observed land subsidence in the region. Glacial isostatic adjustment, or the flexing of the Earth’s crust in response to glacier formation and melting, also likely contributes to land subsidence in the region.


https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1392/pdf/circ1392.pdf

The article didn't attribute the entire rise to climate change, so how can it be factually incorrect?
 
Naval Base Ventura County in southern California has lost about 400 feet of beach since the 1940s. The sea level at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the facility was built.

When I see a factually incorrect statement, then why should I believe anything else in the article? Over half the "rise" is due to subsidence.

This is from the USGS, but what the hell do they know about climate change.

Land Subsidence and Relative Sea-Level Rise in the Southern Chesapeake Bay Region

By Jack Eggleston and Jason Pope

The southern Chesapeake Bay region is experiencing land subsidence and rising water levels due to global sea-level rise; land subsidence and rising water levels combine to cause relative sea-level rise. Land subsidence has been observed since the 1940s in the southern Chesapeake Bay region at rates of 1.1 to 4.8 millimeters per year (mm/yr), and subsidence continues today. This land subsidence helps explain why the region has the highest rates of sea-level rise on the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Data indicate that land subsidence has been responsible for more than half the relative sea-level rise measured in the region. Land subsidence increases the risk of flooding in low-lying areas, which in turn has important economic, environmental, and human health consequences for the heavily populated and ecologically important southern Chesapeake Bay region. The aquifer system in the region has been compacted by extensive groundwater pumping in the region at rates of 1.5- to 3.7-mm/yr; this compaction accounts for more than half of observed land subsidence in the region. Glacial isostatic adjustment, or the flexing of the Earth’s crust in response to glacier formation and melting, also likely contributes to land subsidence in the region.


https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1392/pdf/circ1392.pdf
Interesting,
upload_2017-6-4_9-57-17.png



though how do you explain the other half?
 
Did you selectively read the source? Because on skimming through it:
Human sources of carbon dioxide are much smaller than natural emissions but they upset the balance in the carbon cycle that existed before the Industrial Revolution. The amount of carbon dioxide produced by natural sources is completely offset by natural carbon sinks and has been for thousands of years. Before the influence of humans, carbon dioxide levels were quite steady because of this natural balance.4
It's a hoax...
 
Back
Top