Dear Jennifer, I had a holiday on Lady Elliot Island in October 2013 and while there took the attached photos with the idea that I might send the one of the climate change sign to an Australian blog as an example of Federal Government alarmist propaganda.
Lately the tide seems to be turning against the CO2 global warming scam with the Akademik Shokalskiy debacle in the Antarctic, record polar sea ice totals, the circumpolar vortex in the northern hemisphere and Tom Switzer’s article in the Sydney Morning Herald. However with the heat waves lately in Australia the warmists are fighting back with the usual dodgy forecast heat records which are very seldom reached but most people don’t question them. I commend you for your open letter to the BOM requesting verification of the 2013 temperature record.
I had another look at this photo of the sign today to work out again how much sea level rise they showed in the graph from 1990 to 2013 and it scaled about 300mm or 13.04mm/year. As another check I scaled the 600mm rise over 57.5 years and only got 10.43mm/year which seemed extremely odd, (I’m a retired land surveyor used to working with graphs).
On further inspection I finally noticed that the 5 year intervals on the x axis read 2010, 2015 then jumped 15 years to 2030 and back to 5 year intervals from 2035 to 2055 which explained the yearly rise difference. The sign writer obviously made a booboo or the original information he was given was wrong. Either way the error should have been corrected before the sign was released for public viewing. The nearest National Tide Centre Gauge at Rosslyn Bay shows a rise of about 2.8mm/year and has only operated since 1993 so the 13mm/year rise on the graph is ridiculous.
As the Great Barrier Reef is in your bailiwick I thought you might be interested in publicising the gross errors on this “way over the top” sign and I assume that a similar one is also on most of the other islands controlled by the GBR Marine Park Authority but you will probably be able to find this out easier than I can. The 03 in the top left corner may be its sign number.
Regards
Sel Hopley
Click on the image for a larger and better view of the entire photograph including the how to save the Island by setting your air con at 25 degrees celsius.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
2015 to 2030, or
15 – 30
I sense a tennis player behind this sign!
Heater comes on at 69 F and the air conditioner at 78 F, or
using the Celsius scale about 20.5 and 25.5. Not much help from me.
I live in North America and have a 100% electric house from 100% hydro power.
Further, I believe no matter what is done about fossil fuels (or “carbon pollution”) the effect on Earth’s temperature to the nearest whole number will be Zero. Zip. Nothing. 0.
I thought coral islands were supposed to “float” according to Darwin, thereby making it a non-problem.
Lady Elliot is a mark of the course in the Bris/Gladstone and many a skipper has tried to sail over it in the dark with devastating results. Too dry for that. Rooklyn in “Appollo” was one I recall.
BTW, Gladstone, which is just across the paddock, had a max today of 23.8c which must be one of their cooler summer max temps.
Seems these people come from the same fantasy world of bazza and Luke. Just set your AC at 25C and you can stop SLR, now that really sounds like Luke and bazza.
Certainly sounds like the fantasy numbers that bazza dreams up.
Monuments to Global Warming Stupidity.
That is how they will be remembered.
My favourite Monument to Global Warming Stupidity is the Pillar of Courage, which shows previous floods at higher levels when carbon(sic) levels were much lower.
http://www.thesatellite.com.au/news/pillar-of-courage-unveiled/1239055/
It seems that the Gobbels idiot is alive and well in Germany. If you’re going to tell a big BS lie then why not exaggerate it by a factor of 1100.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/31/major-german-daily-die-welt-wildly-exaggerates-western-antarctic-ice-shelf-melt-by-1100-times/
Western Antarctic warming is not unusual or unprecedented at all. It has happened before during the earlier Holocene and within the last 300 years.
Here is what Steve Goddard said about what AGW hypesters have done with their CO2 obsession in the United States. I think that it is completely applicable to Australia with minor changes:
“Quoted from Steve Goddard’s Real Science blog
“Governments have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on global warming, and what do we have to show for it? Nothing but a frozen country and some tampered data.”
Ole Humlum has used Uni Colorado trends since 1999 to show that estimates of SLR until 2100 have reduced from 40cm ( 1999) to 16cm in 2012.
So the estimate has been reduced by 24cm in just 13 years.
Here’s his quote.
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”
Then there are the whack jobs at the BoM who link to SkS and RC to explain how climate changes. (Did you know climate changes? It does you know.)
Ah, these are the golden years of science vaudeville. Let’s send a few billion off to the EU anti-market and erect whirlygigs right across the Blue Mountains. Money short? EU not price-rigging quite like they should? Sell more coal! If the price is low we’ll make it up in volume. We’ll fight those durrrdy carbon emissions for as long as we’ve got coal to burn in Asian furnaces (though not domestically, you silly skippies).
Yes John F.
To the nearest whole number. . .whether it’s C or F.
There has been rather a lot of hand waving over those fractions or points which we”re all entirely equipped to handle. Most of the planet would be devoid of everything if it wasn’t.
This should interest you lot…I expect you will laud the advantages, but totally miss the irony!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/arctic-city-new-route-china
It’s amazing that not enough of these errors are picked up.
One similar, is an article in The Weekend Australian called:
“Winds put heat on southern capitals”.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/winds-put-heat-on-southern-capitals/story-e6frg6xf-1226815320900#mm
This is pay walled but you can Google to get around it.
The overview is explaining the southern heatwaves in Australia. But two different versions by scientists in the one article.
1. Monash Uni Professor of Applied Mathematics and meteorology, Michael Reeder said this:
“There are more heatwaves during a La Nina.”
2. CSIRO senior climate scientist Wenju Cai said this:
“Heatwaves were normally more intense during a El Nino.”
Here we have the top tier scientists in their field telling Australians in the local paper, two different tales.
Maybe, just maybe, heatwaves are more likely in SUMMER? But then again with the new definition of HEATWAVE by BOM, we could have anything turning up.
Overall, I find the information coming from the news or media sections of BOM, CSIRO, UNI’s etc are getting more unreliable as time goes by. Why is this?
Maybe grasping at straws and waffling on about different meteorological terms to baffle the public with bullshiit.
Jaycee,
“Our children will be the first generation in modern history to experience an entirely new ocean opening up”
Where have I heard this before?????????
Lady Elliot Island is sinking, the rain will never…., Our children will never see snow again, and on and on and on and on.
How about some more HOT tips?
DaveMyFace – why is what Reeder and Cai said inconsistent? Read what you’ve transcribed. Of course if you do science by press clipping you ought to be careful. You’re not even sure of accurate quotes or context. A serious person would contact the scientists involved via email and ask politely whether there is an inconsistency before going the ad hom. Perhaps you might even learn something. Why do you think there is a need for conspiracy – the press would have asked around various organisations for comment. It seems you guys think that anyone involved in climate science is sitting around a witches cauldron waiting for yet another opportunity to mislead the public. A bit shrill don’t you think?
Luke,
Exactly my point you have confirmed.
So every Jo Blogs should contact the scientists involved to get all the relevant data to back up their statements. You’re joking. How about scientists that make statements insist on links to papers confirming these statements.
Don’t you see the continual damage to your own cause being done by random, misguided and off comments from scientists continually in the press, whether News, Guardian, ABC or Fairfax.
The time has finished where elitism of Prince Charles, Flannery, Suzuki & Cook can demand acceptance. Only scientific proof is necessary for a debate or consolidation to occur.
Including your good jovial self Luke.
The sign at Lady Elliot Island is a good example of absolute garbage being fed to your ignorant masses that should believe.
Well said DaveMyFace
Why do you think what they said was not precisely correct. Who says its misguided?
You have asserted it’s misguided to make a beatup where there is none. Why don’t you tell sceptics to stop misrepresenting – we could fill pages with their utter nonsense.
“Over the past decade, the public and policymakers have come to realize just how atrocious climate models are at predictions, forecasting and future climate scenarios.
Honestly, it’s a wonder anyone still listens to any of the conventional, “consensus” climate modelers at this point, especially the modeling “experts” at NASA.”
http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/01/2013-nasa-hansen-climate-model-prediction-global-warming-reality-those-stubborn-facts.html
Yes, DaveMyFace, stop saying flannery is misguided when everybody knows he is simply confused and wrong.
Get it right!!
Thanks Luke,
“Why do you think what they said was not precisely correct.”
I did not say precisely, that is the problem.
You have confirmed your own misguided misrepresentation.
Do you see where this is going Luke?
Thanks sp, I apologise about Tim Flannery, I knew really he was confused and wrong, but that would be verbalising in the CGAW eyes.
Luke, the two views are opposing. Or do you agree with 1 or 2? It is the perception you and the ABC, GUARDIAN, FAIRFAX etc are projecting. Even Barry today on the Insiders asked how the ABC could correct this?
He can’t understand that only the facts and raw data are the most important part of reporting in the media.
If wit was wisdom,
And sarcasm ; science,
The blind would have vision
And the foolish ; nuance.
You fellows suffer from a lack of all four essentials….walk on in darkness!
I see JC has emerged from his fact free zone with his fairies at the bottom of his post hole. So tell us how we can have CAGW without an increase in dangerous SLR?
An interesting new Faezeh et al 2013 study looks at Greenland contribution to SLR until 2200. They look at a 2.8C temp increase by 2100 and a 4.5C increase by 2100.
The first ( 2.8c) shows an increase in SLR by 2200 of 1.9cm to 3cm and the 4.5c increase shows 2.9cm to 4.9cm by 2200. That’s about 0.75 inches to 1.25 inches and 1.25 inches to 2 inches by 2200.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7448/full/nature12068.html
We know that the models show Antarctica is negative for SLR for the next 300 years and Greenland’s contribution is small, so where do we get the IPCC’s dangerous SLR from?
Here is the Royal Society’s graph showing all the models of SLR until 2300. Greenland positive and Antarctica all negative. That’s about 99% of the planet’s ice. Antarc 89% and GLand 10%.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.large.jpg
Interesting to note that the IPCC’s estimate for Greenland contribution to SLR in 4th report was +3.5cm and Antarctica was minus -5.5 cm by 2100. Thermal expansion was the largest contributor at 23cm by 2100.
Also the above Faezeh et al study shows little contribution from Greenland for SLR after 2200 or about 1mm to 6mm per century. That’s about 0.04 inches to 0.24 inches or ZIP.
@Comment from: jaycee February 2nd, 2014 at 6:05 pm
This should interest you lot…I expect you will laud the advantages, but totally miss the irony!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/arctic-city-new-route-china
Here is some irony you missed:
Quote from link: “Nadym will find itself on the 21st-century equivalent of the ancient silk route.”
Some questions for jaycee:
Q 1-What was carbon)sic) levels during the ancient silk route?
(Trade in silk grew under the Han Dynasty ( 202 BC – AD 220)
Q 2- Was the arctic ice free then? Was the climate hot? Hotter?
(here is a SKS graph to help you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uif1NwcUgMU)
Q 3- Why would the Russians need to build the biggest nuclear ice-breaker:
http://rt.com/news/world-biggest-icebreaker-russia-275/
Hey Luke. Is this you?
It’s Chris Hill, and he lives in Albury.
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/8080/droughtxc8.gif
A blog of sycophants – apart from Jaycee. OK, so you think there’s no truth in the notion of human induced warming. Do you also insist that earth’s climate is not changing? During the last 17 years where I live in SEQ, the local climate has changed dramatically. World wide records are being broken in temperatures, storm/wind strength, rainfall intensity, length of droughts… Does this little coven of unbelievers honestly believe that we will return to the ‘normal weather patterns’ of the last hundred years?
handjive – saw your quote on the drum / environment / windfarm – very good. And from same article:
“and the proposed Fremantle Co-operative wind farm project in WA recently hit a $10,000 crowd-funding target to produce myth-busting videos on wind energy.”
Yes – they will produce a myth-busting video, cant wait!
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2014/02/03/3935067.htm
Normal weather patterns have never existed, Saki. There is nothing to return to. In my youth they offered all sorts of reasons for eg the big wets of 1950 and 1955, the ’59-’60 heat, the creeping drought that peaked in 1967 and culminated in Black Tuesday), the floods and cyclones of the 70s etc etc. They blamed everything from Sputnik, A bombs and (ht Stephen Schneider) ice-age inducing particulate pollution.
Of course, in the Queensland of the 1920s and 30s they just lived with sucky drought through decades. There were no luminaries either to enlighten or blame them. (Fortunately, eastern Oz is a somewhat wetter place since 1950, though you’re not to say that too loud in Green company.) But now, with all the attention and reportage and torturing of data, there’ll be “records” coming out of your ears, many quite genuine, a tiny number even significant. Great times ahead for you, Saki, when no amount of Antarctic ice or NH coldwaves can put a dent in the faith. (What the hell, even I think it’s warmer since 1980!)
Let us know when you’ve got “rainfall intensity” to match that of 1950, or of 1955, when an inland sea the size of England and Wales formed to the east of Sydney. Let us know when you’ve got a cyclone and surge to match Mahina in 1899. Or when heat kills like it did in 1895-6 and 1939. Or when you get a fire on the scale of Vic 1852. In fact, all of this could happen again (think heat and fire in 2009!), so I’m not being flippant. And when it does come round again, I truly hope that our Green Betters are not in charge of anything.
Saki, you start by calling us sycophants and praising a sock. But I will merely wish you good night, Saki.
Poor old Saki gives us a list displaying his delusional point of view. Even their IPCC doesn’t believe his drivel so why should we?
I suppose this fool would be happy to return to LIA conditions and the super cyclones that ravaged our east coast during those times?
Go and learn a bit of history before you come here with your invented garbage.
Interesting to look at rate or trend of global SLR in the Jevrejeva et al study (2008) since the 18th century to 2000.
The trend was much faster during tha late 18th, 19th and earlier 20th centuries than the late 20th century. See figures 3 and 4 of the study on page 3.
http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/2008GL033611.pdf Certainly the trend from 1920 to 1950 was higher than 1976 to 2000 as well.
Here are the main points and abstract of the Chen et al study covering decelerating global SLR from 2004 to 2012. But the 1993 to 2003 trend of 3.2 mm year has dropped to 1.8mm year from 2004 to 2012. Very similar to the Ole Humlum analysis at Climate 4 you.
Highlights
•
GMSL started decelerated rising since 2004 with rising rate 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012.
•
Deceleration is due to slowdown of ocean thermal expansion during last decade.
•
Recent ENSO events introduce large uncertainty of long-term trend estimation.
Abstract
Projection of future sea level change relies on the understanding of present sea-level trend and how it has varied in the past. Here we investigate the global-mean sea level (GMSL) change during 1993–2012 using Empirical Mode Decomposition, in an attempt to distinguish the trend over this period from the interannual variability. It is found that the GMSL rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012. This deceleration is mainly due to the slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during the last decade, as a part of the Pacific decadal-scale variability, while the land-ice melting is accelerating the rise of the global ocean mass-equivalent sea level. Recent rapid recovery of the rising GMSL from its dramatic drop during the 2011 La Niña introduced a large uncertainty in the estimation of the sea level trend, but the decelerated rise of the GMSL appears to be intact.
Here is the study. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002397
Saki, just to back up your claims, what are the dramatic changes in SEQ in the past 20 years? How confident are you that the conditions of today are significantly different from 50 years ago? 100 years ago? I lived in SEQ for 40 years from 1959, and have been back there many times since 1999, so I have a fair feel for what it’s like there, including the hot drought years in the 60s and the floods of ’74.
I agree, it has definitely changed some, but the question you have to ask is how much of that matches the projections of the impacts of AGW, and how much different is it now to earlier times?
I posted this yesterday on a different thread, you may find it an interesting read:
http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/products/publications/qld-past-present/qld-past-present-1896-1996-ch02-sec-02.pdf
Saki,
Of course humans impact the globe. . .like duh!
If there was no such thing as humankind. . .then undoubtedly the planet would be different and most likely planet Earth would have evolved differently than it has.
I would imagine if there was no such thing as ants or perhaps trees. . .then the earth would be different too.
During the last 17 years in SEQ there was a long drought followed by some dramatic flooding. . .are you claiming that the drought and the subsequent flooding in SEQ was caused by humans?
As Robert and Graeme point out above. . .while not pleasant. . .the climate/weather has changed and behaved badly before in SEQ as well as many other places in Australia. . . and will likely do so again.
I also question your use of the phrase ‘normal weather patterns’. . .and how you are conflating local SEQ weather patterns with global climate projections.
However. . .in contrast to your observations about SEQ in the last 17 years. . .during the last 17 years GLOBALLY (as opposed to your SEQ region). . .there has been what is commonly recognised as a pause or a hiatus in average temps and SLR despite the also well known facts that human activity and C02 emissions have increased.
So in answer to your questions
No. . .I think humans do have some impact and:
No. . .I think that the climate does change, has changed and is changing and:
I have no idea what your definition of normal would be so no. . .I don’t expect it to return to anything. . .especially considering it can’t return it can only evolve and continue.
Of course Saki could be the first to tell us how to fix his problem. Would you like to return to the LIA or MWP or the much warmer Holocene climate optimum etc and have SLs 1.5 metres higher as a result?
And how do you perform this miraclulous change? I suppose you think a co2 tax of 5% of 1.2% of global emissions will do the trick?
Perhaps Saki should have a look at Hansen’s 1988 graph before he answers any of the above questions.
http://www.thegwpf.org/nasahansen-climate-model-prediction-global-warming-vs-climate-reality/
The climate models are a joke and Hansen’s forecasts are a joke as well. Hundreds of billions $ flushed down the drain for a zero return and zip change to temp and climate or SLR or bushfires or cyclones or tornadoes or damage to the GBR or Kakadu etc by 2100.
Meanwhile the Antarctic has set a new record sea ice extent.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-new-record-for-jan-31st/
And thanks to Luke’s study we know that the Antarctic was much warmer from 141 ad to 1250 ad than it is today. So Saki what caused that much warmer period for 1109 years?
Co2 then was about 270ppmv and now 398ppmv. Wakey, wakey.
At least I can say I have been to Lady Elliot Island to look at the turtles and birds. It is a coral island and it certainly is not sinking.
I would suggest apart from debris growth under and above the surface all the bird deposits are more than keeping pace with any sea level changes.
Luke’s comments, as is normal are not worth reading or answering. One has to wonder if Saki is Luke in disguise or a second rate clone. Saki if you live in SEQ have a look at the weather records (particularly rain) in the 1890’s and then again in the federation drought period 1901 to 1915 but then again you probably do not want to look at actual measurements and records (without adjustments) or if you come across them accidentally you dismiss them as not in line with your green inspired beliefs.