Been checking Tas Fire Service online and there are several fresh outbreaks near our little semi bush block.
1967 seems way back now but that is when I began to notice change in bushfire intensity round SE Aus, and in particular how grass fife threatens all communities after a hot spell. The way from Hobart to Dunalley was littered with burnt out cars then. Some still had bodies so we treated every scene with same respect.
The good thing is this time was those same deathtrap roads were closed for the duration of this fresh horror. These photos tell all.
Gavin, “Now I need to decide if this place is worth bothering again”
Here you go again Gavin all huff and puff as if the whole world were against you.
Nobody is either making fun of you or denigrating you or being, as far as I can see, abusive to you.
But mate, you have to be reasonable, if you make statements like the following, why are you surprised when others asking questions?
1967 seems way back now but that is when I began to notice change in bushfire intensity round SE Aus, and in particular how grass fife threatens all communities after a hot spell.
Based on what?
Bushfires happened probably long before even Aboriginals inhabited this land and you claim that since 67 “you noticed a change”
Again I ask, based on what?
Do you keep your own records or what records did you use?
Forget it it’s not worth bothering about.
If you want to be a part of a blog community (any blog) that is not necessarily agrees with your political and social views then you have to be prepared to take a few knocks along the way. Or do you want everyone to furiously agree with everything you say?
I’d be happy if it happened at my place I tell you, just some of the time Pam usually has something else in mind when I think of fun things to do.
No, not that!
Facts will do nicely to win an argument.
Anecdotes are fine in the pub.
SD, for what it’s worth i think you have a point, but it si unlikely that the Deltoids would ever admit it. Me, I’d like to see some examples of similar long term benchmarks to yours and how they compare to tide gauges.
That aside though, what’s your view of the tide gauge records. I have now spent a lot of time looking at NOAA and PSMSL data and very clearly there is SLR in that data.
What’s your view on those records?
By the way for anyone interested, David Benson on Deltoid agreed that my calcs for the SLR affecting Sandy’s storm surge were probably a fair claim. By my reckoning, it’s unlikely there was more than 2″ additional sea level for the tide of the day at the time of landfall. I’m not claiming that my numbers are the absolute truth, but I AM saying that SLR had little impact on the extent of the storm surge.
“SD; for that matter, where is your SL evidence suported?”
If you said to me gav, that say, 50 years ago you lived in a house by the bay and the king tides came to within a foot of the top of the sea wall but today they cover the lawn and you told me where that house was, I could verify your claim and if it was right I would agree with you.
I have given you numerous benchmarks like above. Even a photograph on a posting of Jen’s last year.
You could ring up Hamid Mirfenderesk at the Gold Coast City Council and ask him why he didn’t mention SLR in any of his papers on the GC Waterways.
But you would not even have to check if you paid attention because you would be aware of what’s going on.
Graeme, no doubt there are more tide gauges around the world that show SLR than falling SL but I dont pretend to understand how TGs record sea levels or whether they all do it the same way. Theoretically SLs can rise by having an increase in MSLs yet still have a fall in highest SLs.
I really don’t know what to believe about TGs, only about what I see and I see huge seafront cities like Brisbane and the Gold Coast and all the seafront suburbia in between unaffected by SLR and no official claim that SLR is occurring.
Actually I take that back about Sandy. I should have noted that the degree of SLR I calculated was only since 1960. If we went back further we may find a larger value, all I was trying to identify was whether the claimed acceleration in SLR is recent decades had contributed substantially. Of course, SLR since say 1870 might be a totally different story…
Sylvania Waters, not far from where I grew up in Carss Park, was built on a swamp during the 60s. At the time, we were surprised it was so flat and so close to sea level, requiring on-going dredging.
It’s all still there, of course, and the Shire aspirers are still paying a fortune for the address. Bit like the Maldives, really, with RE value trumping climate alarmism. Catastrophic SLR is real or unreal, according to what you’re buying or selling.
It’s just that the market for climate beat-ups is bigger than anything right now.
“Graeme, no doubt there are more tide gauges around the world that show SLR than falling SL but I dont pretend to understand how TGs record sea levels or whether they all do it the same way. Theoretically SLs can rise by having an increase in MSLs yet still have a fall in highest SLs”
It’s a complex subject and open to misinformation and spin – from both sides of the AGW argument. I’m content to simply “tell it like it is” and let others do the arguing. However there’s no doubt in my mind that sea-levels are rising in general; that is they’re rising a lot in some locations like parts of the western Pacific and NW Australia, static or falling along the west coasts of both north and south America, and a mixed bunch elsewhere, including the rest of Australia. A great deal of “cherry-picking” goes on in some research papers and in blogs and across the ‘net. I base my overall picture on “eyeballing” (as a filter, not as an absolute determination) around 800 gauge records online at PSMSL, and charting and analysing about 200 of those that have a long enough record to reveal anything, and where that “anything” might be significant.
I’ve checked specific areas worldwide against the satellite record, and in general, there’s agreement as long as an identical period is extracted from TG records to do the comparison. Comparing the satellite record of late 1992 to present against records for the whole or most of the 20th century, or the last 50 or 100 years isn’t valid. Compare like with like, and location against location, or the comparison’s totally invalid; rates vary on a decadal basis, and vary widely from place to place.
My conclusion from all this is that the likely current global rise is something over 2 mm/year, but almost certainly less than 3. That’s less than the published satellite records show in graphical form, but as I said, I can see few discrepancies of any size between the latest satellite maps and gauge records. Interestingly, IPCC AR5 shows the current “satellite rate” at around 2.5 mm/year – rather less than the 3.1 or 3.2 shown in graphical form on the ‘net. It may be that my assessment is closer than my methodology might guarantee. I’ll answer your query about the gauges and recording thereof in a later post, to keep this one to a reasonable size.
The oldest type of gauge is the “stilling-well” type – a vertical tube securely mounted, and with the bottom at a position and depth guaranteed not to “dry out” at extreme low tide. The tube has a small inlet just above the base to restrict water flow in and out. This effectively damps the effects of waves and wash from passing boats, hence the “stilling” in the name. There’s a float attached to a thin woven wire or un-stretchable nylon or similar cord . The idea is that it’s very flexible yet expands/contracts little, if at all. The cord is maintained at constant tension, wrapped around a drum above the well, which rotates one way then the other, as the water level rises and falls. The recording medium used to be a pen recorder which produced a continuous trace on a long chart with time and date markings, wound around drums, driven by clockwork, later a precision electric motor with speed control (picture a large barograph).
Later still the drum produced an analogue electrical signal which could be recorded on the chart, more recently recorded on mag tape. These days virtually all such gauges produce a digital signal which can be recorded and stored locally and transmitted by cable or satellite link at intervals. These days the same type of well can be adapted to use sound waves or radar bounced off the water surface, precisely timed and with allowance made for the temperature and humidity of the air within the well, which affects the time between emission and reception.
An alternative is the “bubbler” gauge in which nitrogen gas is allowed to bubble into the water column near the bottom. Because the water pressure at the gas valve depends on the height of the water column above it, the rate of escape of the gas can be measured and used to calculate the height of the surface of the water in the well. Recording and transmission use the latest methods. Some radar gauges are simply fixed to a bracket over the water on a pier or jetty. They’re easier and cheaper to install and maintain and are less likely to suffer disturbance or damage if Italian cruise ships are in the vicinity.
Increasingly, installations have a co-located GPS receiver which processes GPS signals continuously, hence CGPS. The averaged height and N-S, E-W readings are stored locally and transmitted to a recording station via satellite. Movement of the CGPS receiver and hence the gauge can be calculated from the data.
The SEAFRAME sites maintained by the Oz National Tidal Centre (Adelaide) at Darwin, Broome, Hillarys, etc. use CGPS, but the equipment is located on a stable land surface which might be anything from a few tens of metres to several km from the gauge. The intention is to monitor movement of the land and not the gauge directly. The relationship between the height and position of the gauge and the CGPS station is regularly checked by levelling and laser-ranging every few years, using up to 20 or so benchmarks scattered between the gauge (which has at least one close by) and the CGPS station which has several of its own. The whole process of levelling and recording can take upwards of a week. The gauges record sea level every six seconds, averaging over 6 minutes (also recorded) when the data is transmitted via satellite to Adelaide. The installations also record, store and transmit water temperature, air temperature and barometric pressure though at less frequent intervals.
Similar installations with CGPS are maintained on the Pacific islands such as Tuvalu, Kiribati etc. I understand that the levelling process can take much longer there, though I can’t imagine why (!).
Given it has become extreemly difficult for me to remain on the blog despitea new back lit keyboard and larger monitor, why bother.
Nrv’z loose comment “criminal waste” makes me sick again as it should apply to so many other things generally associated with our consumerism. SD offers no background re his old marks but slams all others begining with satelites. Both have developed a superior attitude to all climate science and Deb clucks about righ tbehind them.
My bushfire theme has been a long cruisade but I can see results from the CRC and research down. Even the arson issue is addressed now with a watch on both veterans and fresh volunteers.
More recently a slow down in the Tas timber industry with fed assistance should take the heat out of that long running resource battle. Everybody is now aware of blatant exploitation, miss magement and coverups prior to the down turn in chip values. Likewise the MDB reforms proceed
Views expressed here wont have the same impact. so I can retire
btw handy cat sleeps on the mouse, keyboard and my right arm, sometimes all three, she will miss the blog
Since nobody has much of a clue why sea levels began rising in the first half of the 19th century, and since nobody has any clue at all about whether the trend will continue or what sea levels will be in the future, we should put SL in the same basket as climate. The basket is labelled “Don’t Know Yet”. Because of Scientism and Publish-or-Perish and other such barbarisms, learned people are discouraged from admitting they don’t know things. Pity, since that’s been the basis of Science and Enlightenment and all sorts of good stuff.
Looks like it’s back to dogma and obscurantism…complete with crappy windmills!
Thanks for that explanation Tony. Most informative indeed. I have been looking at NOAA and PSMSL data records all over the place and doing a variety of plots and agree that tide gauge records do show SLR in many locations (although the extent of land movement relative to gauge values isn’t exactly clear to me)
I do wonder what observations like SD’s, which accord generally with my own in an anecdotal sense, might mean. I have come to the conclusion that for my own local area, a rise of around 200mm over 100 years is probably not detectable against the noise of the tidal variation. Any negative impact is more than likely noticed first with drainage systems and I certainly haven’t investigated those.
But there still do seem to be plenty of real world obs that seem to suggest little has happened, so I don’t know what to say about those. In SD’s case, looking at PSMSL records for the nearest gauges shows very little change over the term of the records, so it is possible those regions have been experiencing less than global average SLR.
The point about aggressive sea level equilibrium seems valid but I don’t have anywhere near enough knowledge to judge how solid such a claim might be. It seems sensible to expect that if sea level is rising over time in one place , it should be doing that everywhere – in other words, the longer the period of obs, the more likely SLR should become apparent in all other locations.
Perhaps in SD’s case, a long enough period has not passed for the overall effect to become noticeable against local variability.
But really, I have no idea – SD’s point just seems to make sense and I don’t know what to think of that in light of tide gauge data.
Well Gav I’m sorry you’re having problems with your eye sight, mine isn’t what it used to be either.
But I do consider that belonging to the 15% of effort to sign up to Kyoto 2 is a criminal waste as well because simple maths tells us there is zero we can achieve by doing so.
In other words I don’t claim superior understanding or IQ but I do apply plain common sense and simple logic and reason.
There is NO EXCUSE for us banging our heads against logic and reason and simple maths when we must know we are wasting all that time and countless borrowed billions $ decade after decade for a guaranteed zero return.
You may not care about health care, plus research , hospitals, schools and education, better and safer roads all types of new infrastructure etc but I do.
A co2 tax is indeed a criminal waste of money, time and resources and signing up to Kyoto 2 is as well. Not my opinion just simple maths.
You’ll note that this is only about 150 klms from the Fremantle SL gauge. But how did these wrecks end up inland under a car park and all that sand after only 170 years when we are supposed to be suffering from SLR in that area? Interesting.
of course it applies to many other things!
Gee Whiz. . . how about you at least stay relevant?
I totally agree this is not the only example of poor fiscal management.
However, that does not somehow make it OK or acceptable in this particular case or any of the other particular cases.
Spending public money for a demonstrably poor return is not a good fiscal policy in any particular instance.
“Perhaps Graeme would like to give us his opinion on this story about American whalers found buried under 5 to 6 metres of sand after being wrecked on a beach near Bunbury WA about 170 years ago.”
I would have no opinion, I don’t know anything of the area, it’s tidal arrangement, land subsidence rates etc. But near where I lived as a kid the Cherry Venture ran ashore in a cyclone, and it’s sat there ever since. Maybe 30-40 years or so? I used to spend a lot of time on the beach there, and over time the ship rusted down but also sank into the sand. Weight and the constant movement of sand due to tidal movements. I daresay some sand buildup also occurred.
My best guess? That beach where the whaler ran aground has pretty strong currents and perhaps a large tidal range. Over time, it sank into the sand, and the region also experienced sand buildup. I’ve never read anything about sand movement, but one would assume that with SLR, one might also get increasing beach height as more sand is deposited. Not always, but you’d imagine it could sometimes.
I think you may have missed the essence of that question from Neville and answered a different one.
Perhaps you’ve been hanging out with the deltoids too much?
They seem to be really good at pretending to answer a question by answering a different question.
Debbie: “I think you may have missed the essence of that question from Neville and answered a different one.”
I don’t think so. I said I had no real opinion. There would be many factors involved at that location and I know none of them. Coastal topography over time is affected by more than simple SLR. I would think that coastlines change all the time due to changing currents etc. Large storms can affect channels, bars and so on and totally change the coastline and deposition rates. That’s not anything to do with SLR.
Simply put, just observing two facts doesn’t tell us anything about the relationship between the two, or to a third fact. I’m not missing anything, or avoiding anything. I simply don’t know.
Tony Price, thanks for the info on gauges; the other thing is the really accurate modern gear which takes into account land movements as well as sea level is only a bit over a decade old, and typically with the newer equipment contradicts AGW.
Nev; we currently do an eye goo session 4 or 5 times a day with 2 types of gel and as neither melt for hours every screen word is a blob of many mmmms.
Something tony wrote about instruments used as tide gauges bothered me. Bubble tubes would be the last straw in liquid level apparatus. Trust me, I had routines for those at many industrial sites and often used to make them to keep instalation costs down.
Typically they used compressed air via a flow regulator to create back pressure from a liquid in the storage vessel. Some form of transducer is used to convert back pressure to liquid depth. Air is simply the process isolator but it can be tricky to manage the small flows required at the bubbler.
“and typically with the newer equipment contradicts AGW” says who coh?
“just observing two facts doesn’t tell us anything about the relationship between the two, or to a third fact” All measurement requires the use of standards in practice and typically 3 is enough to overcome uncertainties.
This is the reason SD’s marks and claims wont wash in polite societies used to references.
‘The large contrast between warm maxima and cool minima resulted in the mean diurnal temperature range being the third-highest on record. The more extreme years of 1994 and 2002 also saw severe drought over most of Australia.’
Anyone interested in bushfire science should see this photo taken by “Chug” 4th Jan from a plane leaving Hobart Airport.
Please note at full resolution; in the atmospherics, a smoke ceiling and high turbulence. On the ground; dryness of grass lands, ratio of grass to bush and sea on the horizon both sides of the Tasman Peninsula.
Gav, when you live where I live, right on a big forest, you’re very interested in bushfire. Some people in the city also take an active interest in bushfire. Tony Abbott has been personally and deeply engaged for many years, hasn’t he?
Now would be a good time to thank those very busy people who sacrifice precious weekends, evenings and sleep to keep us safe. People like Tony Abbott.