ANOTHER year, and I’ve received another photograph from the Spangled Drongo, a regular commentator at this weblog who visits a waterfront property at Cleveland Point, Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia, around this time of year.
Spangled is getting older, and back in the late 1940s and early 1950s he remembers the King Tides used to cover the law by about an inch or so.
This time last year, with the barometer reading normal, Spangled saw the King Tide was about 30cm below the lawn height and sent us a photograph, http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/01/king-tide-not-so-high/
This year, according to Spangled, the highest astronomical tides were lower by around 20 cm and 10 cm respectively due to a small surge from the north. The first day of the King Tide, on January 2, Spangled says that the barometer was reading 1012 hPa and then yesterday (January 3) it was reading 1002 hPa.
Of course sea levels vary around a coastline depending not only on the tides, but also melting poles (climate change), land subsidence and vertical land motion (tectonic and isostatic phenomena). So around Britain the deglaciation of Scotland that occurred thousands of years ago means the northern part of that landmass is still adjusting and shows uplift (relative sea-level fall) while southern England shows subsidence (relative sea-level rise).[1]
Along the Australian east coast it is well document in the scientific literature that sea level was higher during the mid-Holocene around 6,000 years ago and have fallen in total about 2 m to more or less the present position over the last few thousand years. This is consistent with global climatic change over this period, in particular an overall trend of global cooling since the early Holocene.
So while the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO may nag on about a few centimeters of sea level rise over perhaps the last hundred years, the overall more significant trend during the present geological epoch, the Holocene, is one of sea level fall. The only real point of contention seems to be whether the fall has been smooth or oscillating over the last few thousand years.[2]
PS. I shall make some comment on the latest claims from the Bureau of Meteorology that 2013 was the hottest year ever in due course after I have had time to look properly at the data. In the meantime, my blog post from March is still very relevant http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/03/cooking-books-for-hot-summers/
***
References
1. This is all nicely explained in a paper by Ian Shennan et al. entitled Late Holocene vertical land motion and relative sea-level changes: lessons from the British Isles published in the Journal of Quarternary Science (volume 27, pages 64-70).
2. Lewis et al. published a controversial summary in Terra Nova (volume 20, pages 74-81) entitled Mid-late Holocene sea-level variability in eastern Australia.
I think these anecdotes from such a human impacts in the SEQ region is totally confounding – the Brisbane River, port, island building, sea walls, and dredging have altered the Bay hydrodynamics right through to the Southport Broadwater. Jumpinpin itself has changed at decadal scale.
The following study illustrates well why one would be totally suspicious of such urban anecdotes.
“In general, from the model results and
observations it can be seen that head loss associated with Seaway
and Jumpinpin openings accounts for almost 10 to 15 cm
reduction in tidal amplitude. ”
http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/363725/Mirfenderesk07.pdf
Why not have some pictures of the beach erosion scarps in western Cape York? or a picture such as Photo 7 here – 6mm year sea level rise – breaching the Sabai Island sea wall.
http://www.tsra.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/2005/current20and20future20climates20of20the20torres20strait20-20csiro20report-1.pdf
Cleveland Point is a cherry pick
>”PS. I shall make some comment on the latest claims from the Bureau of Meteorology…”
Nothing re SLR in regard to Spangled’s lawn unfortunately:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2013/
But off Queensland, SST merely “Above Average”. That might explain Spangled’s lawn i.e. neither “Very Much Above Average” nor “Highest on Record”.
Great Australian Bight SST “Highest on Record” on the other hand. That might explain some of BOM’s “2013 was Australia’s warmest year on record” and heatwaves e.g. BOM re 2012/13:
“An extended national heatwave began over the southwest of the continent late in December 2012 before moving into southern and eastern Australia”
Along with slow moving High’s e.g. March SE Australia heatwave:
“A near-stationary high pressure system over the Tasman Sea….”
And the SST warming in BOM’s graph goes back to 1910 – well before any CO2 uptick, and therefore anthro attribution:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2013/20140103_SSTa_plot.png
Errrr Luke?
“Cleveland Point is a cherry pick”
Well yes and no. . .as has been pointed out the observations go from the late 1940’s. . . so there are least 60 years worth. . .but it is only one location and of course humans have worked to protect their infrastructure (like Duh!!!).
However. . .wouldn’t this also be ‘cherry picking’?
” Why not have some pictures of the beach erosion scarps in western Cape York? or a picture such as Photo 7 here – 6mm year sea level rise – breaching the Sabai Island sea wall.”
And since when did beaches not suffer from erosion and since when did sea walls not get breached?
SUUUUrrrreeeeellllyyy you are not inferring that if we could stop causing AGW then beaches won’t erode anymore and sea walls (which of course are built for a very, very particular purpose. . . see the barrages in SA) won’t be breached anymore?
Well Debs mucking around with Moreton Bay goes back decades. Jumpinpin channel breached Stradbroke Island forming North and South Islands in the late 19th century and has changed ever since.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/preview#!data=!1m4!1m3!1d158126!2d153.3169998!3d-27.6694991
Compare figures 8.3 and 8.4 http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/pdf/CRC/62-jumpinpin.pdf and the 8.4 summary – this is a highly dynamic environment with hydrodynamic and therefore tidal implications.
The Middle Banks area close to Moreton Island has been used in the past as a source of sand for large projects such as the nearby Brisbane Airport and port facilities. Past dredging has removed 18 Mn3 and the removal of another 40 Mn3 is planned. Future sand extraction is expected to aid a major shipping channel straightening project.
Cape York is an area of suggested high sea level rise (unlike SEQ http://www.oceanclimatechange.org.au/content/index.php/site/report_card_extended_2/category/sea_level) and the beach erosion/incision is at multi-decadal scale indicating a progressive erosion. Geomorphology ! Some Torres Strait islands more complex due to possible subsidence.
Luke,
Sabai Island has been a disgraceful waste of money for nearly 70 years. After WW2 the island was totally inundated with high tides and waves etc. The community was moved to Cape York (about 1948) to live with the Murri groups there. The Saibai Islanders moved 13 km west to the coast at Red Island Point because the locals couldn’t get along with them.
Some moved back to Sabai Island in the 60’s and ever since we have been pouring money into a sinking island ever since. Utter stupidity, and then the link to your intrepid climate scientists jump on the money gravy train and do another report. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr……….
It is NOT sea level rise, the alluvial soils that built up over 1,000 years from PNG river systems, have stopped, in part from massive river mouth blockages and mining waste from different sources. Even Ross Garnauts OK Tedi mine waste has impacted on many of the Torres Strait islanders with no outcry from the Greenies.
Just scream sea level rise and do another 100 reports on climate change, spend billions on trying to save Sabai Island, like the last 60 years of brain dead politicians and new wave of climate scientists. The island has been sinking for nearly 85 years or so since records were taken. Sabai Island is located on a tectonic plate which is slowly descending below another rising plate. Walls, barriers etc are an utter waste of money.
Luke, this example you gave is the BIGGEST cherry pick of the year.
Check this article from 1948 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/49657129
Errr Luke?
Is there such a thing as ‘regressive erosion’ when we are talking about coastlines?
I’m not sure why you think the information re the mucking around in Moreton Bay and dredging etc is relevant?
Is it because you think it has ‘masked’ AGW induced SLR or is it because you think it’s all bad to create infrastructure to mitigate coastal erosion and develop areas on the coast . . . or what?
It looks like that ancient looking dock thing was made at the perfect level for this King Tide.
I wonder how your ancestors knew to adjust for the global warmi… Say!
Luke has some very valid points about cherry picking.
One should ‘look further afield’ …
* The Lempriere-Ross mark http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39386000/jpg/_39386131_dead350.jpg
This Ordnance Survey Bench Mark engraved into a rock face on a little island near Port Arthur, Tasmania out there in 1841 by the famous Antarctic explorer Captain Sir James Clark Ross and amateur meteorologist Thomas Lempriere to mark mean sea level is still there today.
* Century old map throws new doubt on climate change sea level claims
http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/2725/old-map-throws-doubt-on-climate-change-sea-level-claims/
A new book on the history of New Zealand has inadvertently stirred the climate change debate by revealing a near zero sea level increase over the past century.
* FISH TRAP EVOKES POWERFUL MEMORIES FOR ESPERANCE TRADITIONAL OWNERS
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/03/2013/fish-trap-evokes-powerful-memories-for-esperance-traditional-owners
* Shipwreck timbers add to mounting evidence that explorers visited New Zealand, Australia, much earlier than generally accepted
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/technology/science/shipwreck-timbers-add-to-mounting-evidence-that-explorers-visited-new-zealand-australia-much-earlier-than-generally-accepted/story-fnjwl0ds-1226788010037
It would appear that even 40 years of observations at Moreton Bay confirm observations all over the antipodes.
Ms Jen. If I may go o/t and refer to a previous post comment in reference to Drudge News, you might find this link amusing.
“MSNBC’s Chris Hayes is not happy that skeptics of the catastrophic anthroprogenic global warming (CAGW) theory, in particular, Matt Drudge, have been pointing out that in this age of global warming, it often seems very cold.”
…”The right wing had a field day, pointing and laughing at the global warming believers, who just to be clear, are only a group of scientists risking their lives for no monetary gain and little glory in order to help save the planet,” [Hayes] said defensively.”
http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/1/4/do-what-i-say-not-as-i-do-msnbc-global-warming-edition.html
“Hayes admitted, however, that Drudge had been successful in creating a culture of global warming skepticism.
“I mean, Drudge has been incredibly powerful, I think, in this,” Hayes said. “Drudge has a thing about climate hoaxism and he has been leading the charge.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/msnbcs-chris-hayes-complains-of-drudge-fueled-snow-trolling-on-global-warming/article/2541532
Debbie I said progressive and I listed a geoscience comment.
DavemyFace I acknowledged subsidence on some Torres Strait islands. But you can have both sea level rise and subsidence or uplift in rare circumstances. Western Cape York is another matter.
Quote: “So while the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO may nag on about a few centimeters of sea level rise over perhaps the last hundred years, the overall more significant trend during the present geological epoch, the Holocene, is one of sea level fall.”
– RECORDS of global sea level rises may be out by as much as 14 per cent on official findings, a climate change study released shows.
The second CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology State of the Climate report found ocean levels had risen 210mm around the world on average since 1880. But the study also acknowledged that the margin of error for the average result was plus or minus 30mm.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sea-levels-rising-and-so-is-the-csiros-margin-for-error/story-e6freuy9-1226299773152
Quote:”So around Britain the deglaciation of Scotland that occurred thousands of years ago means the northern part of that landmass is still adjusting and shows uplift (relative sea-level fall) while southern England shows subsidence (relative sea-level rise)”
‘Britain’s Atlantis’ found at bottom of North sea – a huge undersea world swallowed by the sea in 6500BC
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2167731/Britains-Atlantis-North-sea–huge-undersea-kingdom-swamped-tsunami-5-500-years-ago.html
Hunter, J.R., 2003. A whisper from the past – staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/bamos_pap.pdf
Demolishes the old Isle of the Dead story.
Oh Luke,
Why do you link to papers that are done solely by Climate Scientists?
Your paper regarding western Cape York is an information black hole on erosion at Cape York. The authors are from Tasmania, South Australia and Victoria. Church loves to reference himself and yet uses no Geological papers to investigate his theory. The majority of the paper is NOT about erosion in the Western Cape York.
It is a paper on Climate Change Sea Level alarmism.
Luke, lets start on western Cape York Geology101. to make your 2nd BIGGEST cherry pick of the day more obvious.
1. The entire west coast is beach ridges and swamps.
2. This excludes the bauxite cliffs between Weipa and Aurukun, have you been there Luke?
3. These shelly quartz sandy deposits drift slowly from North to South.
4. The whole of this area has been eroding for some 7,000 years.
5. The sands of almost 80% of the beaches have subsided into the Gulf of Carpentaria.
Once again you had missed my inference of wasted money on Climate Science, when more constructive research should be made in geological studies.
But do you agree that too much emphasis is placed on catastrophe instead of real science.
The Cape York erosion cherry pick is nearly as bad as your Sabai Island gullible stories.
CSIRO promised a report out by 2000 – nothing to date in 2012 and still waiting – because this mark is still only 350mm above mean sea level – Dr Pugh says:
“technical problems have prevented CSIRO from recording reliable data until just the last few months and, because mean sea level can change over the course of a year through seasonal water temperature changes, no results will be published until the year 2000″
Why?
1. They can’t alter the data that much to prove it wrong.
2. Too many people have recorded over the 171 years.
3. That particular land mass is stable – so they can’t even add 50mm on the land rise.
4. Because on the “Isle of the Dead”, the mark made in 1841 (171 years ago) is still only 350mm above mean sea level.
5. Because they’re running out of time for the BullSh*L.
6. The BBC ran an article in 1999 with Dr. Pughs excuses that it is wrong.
The “Isle of the Dead” Ordnance Survey Bench Mark is there now, today – KR, Maxcaine, KFC et al – go and have a look.
This has not been peer reviewed, it is carved in STONE not melting ICE.
Luke,
Secondly, you indicate sea level is rising between 3mm and 8mm per year in some localities?
Do you know by how much the tip of Cape York plate is being pushed per year towards the PNG mainland?
Well, it’s 7cm per year now.
That’s right, in 2013, Cape York was 700mm closer to PNG than the year before. And you listen to Climate Scientists like Church, Flannery and Turney for facts?
7cm is only 70 mill
sorry be a pedant
DaveMyFace – Hunter hit the old Daly ruse on Isle of the Dead mark for six. Who knows what the mark really means.
Tip of Cape York? Church?
Cape York is a bit bigger than the tip. A very large amount more than that – see http://www.ga.gov.au/webtemp/1247957/72972.pdf page ii So you’re a geoscientist now are you?
And I don’t listen to Flannery and Turney for facts. Don’t verbal me mate. Like a typical faux sceptic you assume too much.
still a lot for plate movement??
Luke, you should know better than to criticise Cleveland Point as a cherry pick and subject to the vagaries of any hydrodynamic patterns in Moreton Bay.
During early settlement, Cleveland Point was touted as the logical port for the city of Brisbane because it fronted a 7 kilometre wide stretch of deep water expanding to ~ 20 kilometres wide up to the north end of the bay, a great advantage for sailing ships to reach port without assistance.
Any dredging or shore-line modifications anywhere in the bay would make absolutely no difference to Cleveland Point’s hydrodynamics simply because of this huge body of water that feeds that general area.
It is equally well fed with tidal flow from the Rous Passage as it is from the North East awa North West shipping channels.
It is completely unrestricted WRT tide flow and not only NOT cherry picking but as good a subject for true SL comparison as you could want.
IOW, enormous tide flow in a natural stilling pond.
Luke, you’re not seriously suggesting that the Gold Coast Seaway has an effect on the tides at Cleveland Point?
The new Seaway didn’t even have any effect on high tides in the Southport Broadwater!
It has made low tides lower but king tides still come to their old limits at the top of canal walls built to AHD 100 as required by GCCC 60 years ago.
So it would have absolutely no affect on Cleveland Point high tides 50 kilometres away.
And of course the Jumpinpin opening happened before these obs so doesn’t come into it.
The Uni of Colorado sea level page is still showing about 3.2mm/ year. At that rate SLR by 2100 would be about 275mm or 11 inches. Not much different than the 20th century rise. So were’s the dangerous AGW they keep telling us about?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ But other new studies using tidal gauges estimate about 175mm by 2100 or about 7 inches.
Even the French are now ripping into Turney and his pseudo science junket cruise. What an embarrassment to serious OZ work in Antarctica.
http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=939155&cid=BP_RSS_TOPSTORIES_3_PolarchiefslamsAntarcticcruise_040114
Luke.
Q. “DaveMyFace – Hunter hit the old Daly ruse on Isle of the Dead mark for six. Who knows what the mark really means.”
A. Are you on drugs, I didn’t mention anything about this rant.
Q. Tip of Cape York? Church?
A. You have to read your own links Luke. Drugs again.
Q. Cape York is a bit bigger than the tip. A very large amount more than that – see http://www.ga.gov.au/webtemp/1247957/72972.pdf page ii
A. Irrelevant paper and old (1995) but still useful thank you. But nothing on the CAGW massive erosion of Western Cape York.
Q. So you’re a geoscientist now are you?
A. No, I never said I was. Are you sure you’re feeling OK tonight Luke.
Q. Don’t verbal me mate. Like a typical faux sceptic you assume too much.
A. I didn’t, but you seem to have gone into a state of anger over your two GIANT cherry picks.
The point is that once again you have missed the fact that billions of dollars have been eroded to the Green Agenda of Climate Change (CAGW) and all the other disciplines have suffered.
Climate Science as a discipline is very close to being finished for good. The only way you can prevent this is start being honest instead of providing the TWO BIGGEST CHERRY PICKS of all time. You are just adding to it’s downfall.
Spangled’s example is typical of observations all around the world, you only have to visit Newstead House near Breakfast Creek, then study old aerial photos and see nothing has changed. Same for Magnetic Island off Townsville (Arcadia bay wharf), the same rocks are exposed at low tide as they were 50 to 60 years ago with the craving of a fish in them. But your love of 97% proof will ignore this fact.
Well the 97% of climate scientists haven’t even been to 1% of the worlds environment and habitats. The high moral ground is subsiding Luke. And the CAGW train is on it.
Davey I’m not angry in the slightest and I don’t do drugs, drink or smoke. But excuse my rhetorical parry – but please apply your rules uniformly to the others as well.
I made an error above and I apologise but explains my confusion – the Church url should have been http://www.oceanclimatechange.org.au/content/images/uploads/sea_level_fig2.jpg – I cut and pasted the site not the graphic in error. But yes is a Church et al map.
– sea level rise isn’t uniform – and is influenced by much decadal factors (IPO), weather and any changes that impact the hydrodynamics of the area – plenty in terms of SEQ in the 20th century !
Tomlinson gives a pretty good overview – the Qld wave height trends are variable and the impact of the IPO on sea level rise considerable. All this confounds analysis. http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/313405/Tomlinson_2007_Climate-Change-Coastal-Inundation-and-Erosion_Presentation.pdf and http://www.qldcoastalconference.org.au/2007/Speaker_Papers_Wednesday/Helman_Peter.pdf
The GA paper is quite relevant as it gives good information on 20th century sea level impacts on Cape York – beach erosion scarps, wetlands impacted by salinity RIGHT where the Church sea level maps say it should be. OK you can argue it’s quasi-anecdotal or qualitative.
You’re putting the C in the AGW not me. We’re a long way from the “C” bit – so again you’re simply dressing it up. 1995 is not that old in terms of sea level rise.
It’s not a “green agenda” necessarily – two of the biggest AGW proponents, James Hansen and Kerry Emmanuel are republicans and pro-nuclear. Have you not worked out by now that you’re one’s quoting Flannery, Gore etc. Not me. And funnily enough I don’t think green activists determine how GCM physics is modelled. The hard science is often a long ways from the political wing.
Even to the point of Gavin Schmidt questioning advocacy. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/agu-talk-on-science-and-advocacy/
Possibly Spangled is right but I think it’s easy to postulate why the example isn’t a good one. Nearby Gold Coast seaway changes drops tides 10-15cm?? ! Cape York provides a quite good example that indicates the opposite of what he saying. Yes be good to have some more up to date information.
The high moral ground isn’t collapsing at all – as it continues to play out the faux sceptics are simply getting more political and more desperate. The tactic of course will be to agitate enough to defund the research effort. Like some would like to do with all environmental research.
2013 was a bummer year for the CAGW nutters.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/04/2013-was-not-a-good-year-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-climate-warming-change-disruption-wierding-ocean-acidification-extreme-weather-etc/
“Nearby Gold Coast seaway changes drops tides 10-15cm?? !”
Luke, please think about that.
The old sand bar that existed prior to the Seaway, dried out at low tide so the Broadwater did not empty at the rate it now does.
With the Seaway, there is still a deep, navigable channel at low tide.
Low tides are now about 30cm lower.
This made the average tide 10 – 15 cm lower but high tides being fed by a deep, wide channel, were not affected in any way.
Ole Humlum has this to say about recent SL trends.
“Note: Using the 3 year average shown in the diagram above, based on observed sea level changes, around 1999 the total sea level change from then until year 2100 would have been estimated to about 40 cm, in 2005 to about 30 cm (year 2005-2100), and in 2010 to about 22 cm (year 2010-2100). On July 14, 2012, the prognosis would be about 16 cm sea level increase until 2100. It is interesting that this simple empirical forecast has shown a steady trend towards lower values since about 2002.”
Ole seems to be saying that trends since 1999 have moved from 40cm by 2100 to 16cm by 2100 in July 2012. That’s 16 inches in 1999 to a lower estimate of about 6.5 inches by July 2012.
If he’s correct then that trend has decelerated from 40cm to 16cm in just 13 years. If that rate continued for another decade we could then expect little SLR by 2100.
So where is the dangerous SLR from CAGW we’ve been told about for the last 30 years and where is the dangerous warming?
BTW just heard that there isn’t much warming in the USA at the moment. Some parts could experience record cold temps of minus -50C in next 24 hours.
Spangled – you’d need to be a hydrodynamic whiz – but two things – IPO affects sea level in a major way (Helman, Tomlinson) – and there are major natural (Jumpinpin) and anthropogenic changes (dredging, islands, breakwaters) to Moreton Bay and the Gold Coast seaway. Some work says this makes an impact. (I made similar comments not understood also about Port Phillip Bay dredging impacts).
Do you not find it curious that a number of players have looked at the long run tidal data sets and found long term trends? e.g. Page 4 http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/313405/Tomlinson_2007_Climate-Change-Coastal-Inundation-and-Erosion_Presentation.pdf
And see above page 5 – no wave height trends for NSW but Qld upwards trends except for Cairns and Weipa which is down??
There’s a lot here to make sense of? Your personal observations and Dave’s don’t align with the data….
And the sea level maps/altimeter put the sea level rise more in northern Australia – so we need look for evidence or the lack of there ! The 1995 GA report gives some evidence of that.
“So where is the dangerous SLR from CAGW we’ve been told about for the last 30 years and where is the dangerous warming?”. Why don’t you quote the IPCC numbers?
Neville stop framing. You’ve deliberately added the “C” and the dangerous to suit your nefarious objectives with no context. Typical fraudulent denier tactics.
But more importantly you ask “where is it” – well two things (1) we’re not there yet are we – and you’re putting a linear projection through a small short run amount of data (classic Neville) (2) well gee wouldn’t it depend on future climate (3) how about you advise on paleo information like what sea levels were during the Eemian?
Geeeezzzz Luke that’s my point . There were ZIP humans around in the Eemian and earlier Holocene and NATURAL SLs were much higher. Get it.
Even 4,000 years ago SLs were much higher around OZ and globe due to the earlier NATURAL warming of the Hol optimum.
So why can Ole Humlum find such a deceleration in such a short time frame? And tell us how we can reconcile a heat wave in parts of OZ and record cold in parts of USA with your claims that the planet is too warm and will get warmer?
Do you think we should invent some soooppper doopper energy transfer with your climate adjusting knob and make those parts of the USA a bit warmer and OZ a bit cooler? But ya gotta laugh.
While that relic of the late 19th century, namely SLR, is the beat-up of all beat-ups, we have to be wary of the Ice Agers right now. Coldies don’t cost as much as warmies – who does? – but they love their extrapolations and (god help us) their “trends” just as much as warmies do.
Since around 2009 there have been major cold events in the NH, and this year’s North American cold wave is a doozie. But just remember the precedents: 1888, 1912, 1936, 1978 etc. And, yes, 1936 was also the year of the Big Heat, so don’t be surprised if the people shivering now are sweltering in a few months. (And, yes, that cold wave was preceded by the Labor Day Hurricane, still the most intense at US and Atlantic Basin landfall, so don’t be surprised etc etc.)
Meanwhile sea levels continue to dawdle upward a bit…till they dawdle down one day. Welcome to the Old Normal.
Robert I couldn’t agree more. I’m neither a coldy or a warmy, just a basic NATURE man. We just have to take what bloody rotten old GAIA dishes out. Adaptation is always the best response.
But increased co2 should add a bit of warming but probably not much.
But if Ole is right there isn’t much SLR and thermal expansion going on in the last 13 years. So why is that, probably just confirming ZIP warming over that period. Just like all the data bases tell us.
Well Neville – and how many humans in the Eemian living where vis a vis today …..
It’s the old “well the Earth’s seen it before” line – well the rocks might be here but most of the species not.
Robert and Neville probably drive way above the speed limit with no seat belts too. If they’re not kayaking in forests.
So as usual risk-free let-it-rip Neville advocating no care – no regard – she’ll be right mate. ” Just like all the data bases tell us.” well no actually – but given you only read denier dross how would you know?
Well done SD; sea level is dropping where you are, CommonsenseVille.
In respect of the BOM’s claims that 2013 was the hottest summer, they also made the claim that the 2013 summer was the hottest; that was based on an extrapolation from a hit region, a statistical sleight of hand:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14784&page=0
The analysis will follow and by then the media will have moved on and whether the BOM was right or wrong will be irrelevant. It is a massive con job.