Why doesn’t climate science peer review involve any actual review?
Nature recently published this ingenious paper claiming a “sea level rise hotspot” between Cape Hatteras and Cape Cod.
Satellite measurements don’t show this “hot spot” – only tide gauges, indicating that the land is sinking rather than the ocean rising. The geology of the region is well understood – glacial rebound from the last ice age is causing the “hot spot” to sink at the same rate as the rise measured by tide gauges.
PGR_Paulson2007_Rate_of_Lithospheric_Uplift_due_to_PGR.png (2200×1700)
Besides the fact that they missed the fundamental geological point, their claim of “accelerated sea level rise” is also bogus. The tide gauges show no acceleration, just a steady subsidence of the land over the last 160 years. The fastest sea level rise actually occurred during the 1930s.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/12.php
It took me about 15 seconds of reading the study to recognize the horrific error they had made – yet the paper managed to get through peer review at the “prestigious” Nature Magazine.
h/t to Marc Morano