Skip to content

Has National Geographic Sullied Its Reputation?

September 20, 2013

Prior to forty or so years ago, the National Geographic magazine was a respected publication.

As a student, I used to refer to the National Geographic for accurate information on historic events, people and geography.

Today, it is becoming just another political rag, with some good stories, but too many sensational stories about climate change.

Sensational Cover Showing Statue Of Liberty Being Submerged by the Sea

Sensational Cover Showing Statue Of Liberty Being Submerged by the Sea

This month, the National Geographic featured the horrifying consequences of sea level rise, supposedly caused by climate change. It used Super Storm Sandy to frame the story.

Even the cover was sensational.

Of course, it ignored the 1938 hurricane that hit Long Island and washed entire communities away, killing many more people than did Sandy. If the center of the 1938 hurricane had hit around 60 miles to the west, it would have inflicted as much, or more, damage on New York City than did Sandy. Even so, it flooded a Consolidated Edison plant on Manhattan. And this was before climate change became a headline grabber.

The story in this month’s National Geographic magazine made claims based on questionable assumptions. For example, it said sea levels were rising over the past few years by 1/8 inch per year, and that sea level rise was accelerating.

First, 1/8 inch per year over the next 87 years, with 2100 being the bench mark used throughout the story would result in sea level rise of 9 inches, not too far removed from the recent past where sea level rise has been approximately 7.5 inches per century … especially when subsidence (see below) is taken into consideration.

AND, they said the rise was accelerating, which created a sense of pending doom. The claim that sea rise is accelerating is tenuous at best, because it’s based on the short, twenty-year time frame during which satellite measurements have been available.

The article also didn’t mention that the land mass around New York City is sinking, by 1 to 2 mm per year, or at least 4 inches per century: This would account for the difference between 7.5 inches per century, i.e., historic rise in sea level, and the apparent rise relative to New York City1. This is the same phenomenon that’s occurring with Venice Italy, where the city is sinking into the Adriatic.

While the article tried to achieve a sense of objectivity, the extremes were highlighted.  Their chart on page 41 clearly accented the 6.6 foot rise, with the added comment that seas would continue to rise after 2100.

Their insert titled, “If All the Ice Melted,” was a map showing all of Florida underwater.

It can only be assumed that the purpose of the graph and insert were to create fear … or to be sensational. The remainder of the article, with pictures showing New York partially flooded, wasn’t much better.

This isn’t the first time the National Geographic has published over-the-top articles about climate change.

On two previous occasions, it has published articles on how climate change was causing the water levels in the Great Lakes to recede.

Fortunately, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintain water level records for the Great Lakes. As they point out, “Great Lakes water levels constitute one of the longest high quality hydro meteorological data sets in North America with reference gauge records beginning about 1860 with sporadic records back to the early 1800s.  These levels are collected and archived by NOAA’s National Ocean Service.”

NOAA has replaced the static charts on its web site with new interactive charts, allowing anyone to research water levels on each of the lakes back to 18602.

NOAA Chart of Great Lake Water Levels

NOAA Chart of Great Lake Water Levels

Currently, the lakes, except Michigan-Huron, are above their historic, 1918 to the present, average. Today, Michigan-Huron are slightly below their average level.

The interactive scale is a useful tool. It shows that the lowest levels occurred earlier in the last century.

Lake Superior, for example, had its lowest water level in 1926.

Lakes Michigan-Huron had their lowest water levels in 1964.

Lake Erie had its lowest water levels between 1934 and 1936.

Lake Ontario had its lowest water level in 1965.

When all the lakes are viewed together, it’s clear that levels have risen and fallen for various reasons since 1860 … not because of global warming, i.e., climate change.

Yet, the National Geographic made it a point to claim that climate change was causing the Great Lake levels to drop.

It would be unfortunate if the National Geographic allowed extremist articles about global warming, i.e. climate change, to sully its reputation.

Note:

  1. Watts Up With That at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/19/from-the-scientific-urban-legend-department-agw-sea-level-rise-made-sandy-more-destructive
  2. Go to http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/dbd  for these charts. The interactive charts are a resource that high school students and others should use.

*  *  *  *  *  *

 

These articles can be delivered directly to your mailbox. Subscribe by clicking below the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription, and entering your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know someone who would be interested in these articles you can send him/her a link to the article and suggest he/she subscribes by clicking on the email subscription link under the picture on the right side of the page, and entering their email address.

To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Advertisements
8 Comments leave one →
  1. nancygreener permalink
    September 20, 2013 10:10 am

    A very interesting and well written article….again!

    Sent from my iPad

    • September 20, 2013 10:21 am

      Thanks. It’s an interesting subject, especially when subsidence since the lifting of the ice from the last ice age is taken into consideration.

  2. September 20, 2013 11:59 am

    Ten years ago I wrote letters to National Georgraphic challenging the faulty science and speculation in their too frequent articles on global warming. They never responded, so I stop subscribing. I had been a paid subscriber since childhood and gave subscriptions as gifts to my international friends. Their stories now are comic books loaded with alarmist fiction. There are major, newsworthy stories they could cover. Like many private and public foundations, National Geographic is an embarrassment to its original founders and members.

  3. September 20, 2013 12:24 pm

    Thanks for your comments.
    I too was once a subscriber and gave the magazine as presents to my children.
    That ended long ago as the magazine took a definite turn to the improbable.

  4. jorgekafkazar permalink
    September 23, 2013 2:42 am

    Those who have taken control of National Geographic seem to have no concern at all for its reputation. They’ll just move on after the magazine has burnt itself out printing obvious propaganda.

    • September 23, 2013 9:25 am

      I’m afraid you are right. Hopefully the magazine can survive the current board and editorial staff. It was a great magazine. Maybe it will be again someday.

  5. October 3, 2013 12:54 am

    I, too, have been thinking of cancelling my subscription. The October 2013 issue was the last straw. It’s a shame that a once great scientific journal is now printing nonfactual, baseless, leftist drivel.

Trackbacks

  1. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s