ONE of the longest continuous sea level measuring gauges is not far from the Sydney Opera House at Fort Denison. The mean sea level trend is 0.65 millimetres per year based on monthly sea level data from 1886 to 2010. 
Except that sea levels haven’t trended consistently up each year but rather follow 50-60 year cycles, then there is the impact from El Nino events, and of course the moon is responsible for the neap tides and the king tides.
To be clear, that is NOT 0.65 centimetres per year, but rather MILLImetres per year. Tiny. Particularly given much of the New South Wales coastline has sustained an approximate 2 metre drop in sea levels over the last few thousand years. Not a 2 centimetre drop, but a 2 metre drop. This is not controversial, but rather a well-established fact in the technical literature. The arguing is not that the fall has been of this approximate magnitude, but whether the approximate 2 metre fall in sea levels has been more-or-less continuous or through step changes.
In the scheme of things the rise since 1886 is but a blip in an otherwise falling trend. Of course go back just 16,000 years and sea levels were rising, and significantly faster than at present. Yes. The climate changes.
But, what about Tuvulu, I hear someone ask? It’s an atoll in the Pacific that is sinking. Add to this pressure from a growing population resulting in the depletion of aquifers, and saltwater intrusion can give the false impression of sea level rise.
But none of this is new information to readers of this blog. What is new, is that Bob Carter and colleagues have just written a long report pointing out that there are wide variations in rates of tectonic uplift and subsidence (sinking) around the world at particular times and that any coastal management plan for New South Wales should be based on a good understanding of the local geology, as well as long-term rates of sea level rise. Professor Carter’s new report also suggests that in order to create an impression of sea level rise, rather than just plot raw data, there is a good amount of homogenization. In particular, the high sea-level rise figure of 3.3 mm per year reported for the Fort Denison tide gauge in the report does not represent the original data measurements, but results from computer modeling combined with the selection of a short and atypical section of the available sea-level record.
All this as rebuttal to what might appear to be an innocuous report by Whitehouse and Associates entitled ‘South Coast Regional Sea Level Rise Policy and Planning Framework’. But apparently it could become something of a blue print for the further erosion of the property rights of coastal residents more generally.
Bottom-line: we are unlikely to lose the South Coast or the Opera House to sea level rise from climate change, but it doesn’t hurt to have your own plan in case of a tsunami. According to Ted Bryant, recently retired from the University of Wollongong, six big tsunamis have hit Sydney during the last 10,000 years, the most recent in 1491.
I’m adding this youtube on a bad moon rising for fun.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Back in 1999, the CSIRO promised to publish information in 2000 about the Lempriere-Ross mark:
“This is the oldest known such bench mark in the world,” says greenhouse dissenter John Daly, who took the photograph.
“Ross put it in an ideal location which is both geologically stable and open to the vast Southern ocean, with no local estuary effects to distort the tides.
“But when we look at the Ross-Lempriere 1841 bench mark, one thing becomes crystal clear: There has been no sea level rise this century – none at all.
“John Daly has taken the mark, which is a nice clear bench mark, and said ‘that is the mean level of the sea at that time’, and it wasn’t,” says Dr David Pugh, from the Southampton Oceanography Centre, UK..
The Southampton scientist is now assisting CSIRO in their current research programme.
John Daly suspects the results, when they do come out, will confirm the accuracy of the Lempriere-Ross work and raise a big question mark over the claims of the scientific establishment that sea levels are on the rise.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/467007.stm
2014, and nothing. ‘oogle it.
CSIRO?
Thanks Jen.
When no-one in their lifetimes can point to any part of the coastline and show any indication of SLR [on the contrary, they can show the reverse] we can only suspect that true science is not leading the charge into our climate “problem”.
No SLR, no global warming.
Simple as that.
We all remember how Envisat showed no SLR until it was suitably “adjusted”
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=envisat+sea+level+graph&biw=1214&bih=633&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=c7cxVMr3OoiC8gXJnYLwAg&ved=0CCYQsAQ
We know much about Lempriere as he was an ardent diarist.
His diaries are held in the Mitchell and Dixon Collection at the State Library of New South Wales.
Lempriere was an erudite man. He was an accomplished artist and spoke five languages. He was naturally curious and spent much time examining the fauna of the region, going to the extent of learning how to preserve animal specimens from a taxidermist in Hobart Town.
Another of Lempriere’s great interests was meteorology, and it is his meteorological records that are held by the Archives.
These records are in the form of handwritten tables listing temperature, rainfall, humidity, barometric pressure, spontaneous evaporation, prevailing winds and cloud formation.
They tell us that, for instance, on 29 September 1858 there was a ‘heavy fall of hail and rain during the day, squally in the morning’.
National Australian Archives.
http://yourmemento.naa.gov.au/2011/01/archives-conservation-efforts-assist-global-warming-research/
Once again we are indebted to Jennifer for bringing us back to basics in clear terms. Beware computer models wherever they appear and remember that whoever writes the assumptions dictates the outcomes. Even if not deliberately planned to deceive it is almost inevitable that assumptions are slewed by the ideological/biases of the originator. Love the ‘Bad Moon Rising’ Youtube.Let’s have more fun!
Sea level is somehow treated like global temperature. It is hyped as a vey big risk that we have to deal with immidiatly, there is absolutely no time to concider the measures.
Anyway what matters is the local sea level like the local yearly changes in the weather/climate, and not some global miniscule changes in some averages.
A half degrees kelvin is a disaster, even if the yearly changes are 20, and the average from year to year can change 2.
Anyway it is a political project. Scare peoble with some invented catastrophe where you had the solution ready, and then say you can save them.
The trend of Sea level versus land has not changed in centuries, but varies around the Globe, and that is what matters. I wonder why the satellites measuring sea level do not also measure the shores, so that a reference could be established.
The results for the last twenty plus years for the sea level measuring stations around the Australian coast indicate that sea level over that period has been rising at the rate of about 3.2mm per annum on the eastern coast.
Those measuring stations compensate continually for changes in atmospheric pressure and are checked by two separate methods for variations in the height of the measuring station from the base datum elevation.
The difficulty I have with the levels reported by the BOM is the rate of change in sea level heights for stations on the western coast between Groote Eylandt and the station on the Bight. For that long stretch of coastline the average annual increase in sea level exceeds 8mm.
Maybe BoM have truncated and homogenized the SL data on that long stretch of coastline?
🙂
John,
Both of the two points that you raise are dealt with in detail in the actual NIPCC briefing paper.
1. Exaggerated rate of rise of 3.3 mm/yr.
Until recently, this figure came only from the satellite altimeter records, but as manifest in the Whitehead and Associates review on the NSW coast, claims are now being made that a similarly high figure applies to tide gauge data.
The NIPCC review shows that both the claimed satellite altimeter measurement AND the claimed NSW tide gauge figure are contrived. In the former case, by adjustments of the satellite sea-level baseline, and in the latter case by cherry picking a short and atypical length of tide gauge data.
Copious data, and the arguments of many independent scientists, demonstrate that the rate of sea-level rise on the central NSW coast over the last 100 or so years has been <1mm/yr, and that that rate has recently been DEcelerating.
No amount of computer modelling wizardry can dispel these basic facts.
2. Different rates of change in different places
Regarding the different rates of change (both rises and falls) around the Australian coastline, that is due to a combination of dynamic oceanographic and tectonic causes. It is entirely expected, unremarkable and similar to the observed conditions on all other coastlines around the world.
That rates, and even directions, of change vary so widely around the world from one place to another is precisely why the use of an estimated global average rate of sea-level change to inform coastal management is naive to the point of stupidity.
You should therefore be concerned that it remains federal, state and local authority, policy to use the IPCC's computer model PROJECTIONS (note, not validated predictions) of GLOBAL sea-level rise as the basis for coastal planning.
The many current politicians involved are living in a virtual reality parallel universe on the sea-level issue, from which they will only be removed by a sharp ballot-box reminder.
John T the Wenzel et al study shows global SLR 1900 to 2009 = 1.65mm/year
1900 to 1954= 1.69mm/year
1955 to 2009 = 1.62mm/year.
I think your 3.2mm for OZ east coast is an adjustment to follow the adjusted satellite measurement. Here is their study. And the OZ east coast looks to be showing less SLR in the later part of the record, see the last three global maps.
http://epic.awi.de/33909/1/2492728wenzel.pdf
The Opera house may have been splashed a bit during 1868 and 1877.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/page/5700952?zoomLevel=6
and
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/148706621?zoomLevel=6
Oh and just for fun…
Bob Carter, very interesting.
Having been fortunate enough to be a seafront dweller for ~ 70 years of my longish life, sometimes having a foot in the bush at the same time, I’ve always been fascinated by highest astronomical tides that arrive often with good weather and average BPs summer and winter.
There have been many housing estates in the Moreton Bay region that had their sea walls built to AHD 100 datum [king tide level] as far back as ~ 60 years ago and today’s HATs are still within a few cms of those wall heights, above and below, as they were originally.
Floods, cyclones and earthquakes, naturally, cause considerable SLR very occasionally as they always have and will but good weather HATs have not increased in my lifetime.
Re Handjive’s link on the Ross Benchmark.
David Pugh displays the inevitable ignorance, and arrogance that seems
inherent in PROGRSSIVE thinkers. Conservatives do not automatically assume everything done in the past is faulty. The highly subjective belief that progressives adhere to is that they are somehow a lot more ethical and precise than our forebears.
( More cleverer? )
His claim that Ross marked “the HIGH water level” is clearly ridiculous.
Even the dullards among the great unwashed know that the high water mark is highly variable, whereas the mean is quite a stable level.
What has happened to the Pugh/CSIRO update on the Ross benchmark????
Cheers, Slowlurnr.
>”Fort Denison. The mean sea level trend is 0.65 millimetres per year based on monthly sea level data from 1886 to 2010. ”
I’ve just replied to egg in the previous thread on this vein here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/09/open-thread-30/?cp=2#comment-566430
Basically neither OHC nor SLR is a global phenomenon. OK, satellite SLR around Sydney is greater than 0.65 mm/yr over the last 20 yrs but Brisbane is 0, so is the entire coast of Nth and Sth America:
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Map_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.gif
My previous point being that individual regions skew the global metrics; SLR by Nth of AU and OHC by the Indian Ocean. And that attributing the IPCC’s budget of linear SLR trends to basin observations becomes problematic:
From AR4 5.5.6 Total Budget of the Global Mean Sea Level Change
Table 5.3.
Sea Level Rise (mm yr–1)
Source 1961–2003 1993–2003
Thermal Expansion 0.42 ± 0.12 1.6 ± 0.5
Glaciers and Ice Caps 0.50 ± 0.18 0.77 ± 0.22
Greenland Ice Sheet 0.05 ± 0.12 0.21 ± 0.07
Antarctic Ice Sheet 0.14 ± 0.41 0.21 ± 0.35
Sum 1.1 ± 0.5 2.8 ± 0.7
Observed 1.8 ± 0.5 3.1 ± 0.7
Difference (Observed –Sum) 0.7 ± 0.7 0.3 ± 1.0
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-6.html
On the face of it OK where the locality’s SLR is around 2.8 – 3.1 mm/yr (say Sydney by satellite). Except Greenland meltwater has no effect at Fort Denison and Glaciers and Ice Caps would be a stretch too.
But now try applying that budget to the much greater area of the eastern Pacific or the Southern Ocean………
Bob C,
>”the use of an estimated global average rate of sea-level change to inform coastal management is naive to the point of stupidity”.
You put it more succinctly than I did.
Also now I read these 2 articles:
‘Scientists to ‘fast-track’ evidence linking extreme weather to climate change in sign of panic that they’re losing propaganda battle to the sceptics’
Scientists have created a new tool for linking climate change to weather
The model should be fully operational by next year according to experts
Scientists will be able to link adverse weather to climate change in 3 days
Dr Friederike Otto of the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University said: ‘We want to clear up the huge amounts of confusion around how climate change is influencing the weather, in both directions. For example the typhoon in the Philippines that dominated the UN climate change talks in Warsaw last November and that many people put down to climate change – it turned out it had no detectable evidence. And the same goes for Hurricane Sandy.’
Dr Otto told The Independent there were many cases where scientists have proved that events have either been triggered or exacerbated by climate change.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2780587/Scientists-fast-track-evidence-linking-extreme-weather-climate-change-sign-panic-losing-propaganda-battle-sceptics.html
‘Past measurements may have missed massive ocean warming’
Earth’s oceans have absorbed more than 90% of the warming caused by greenhouse gases, researchers estimate, with the stored heat showing up as warmer seawater.
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/10/past-measurements-may-have-missed-massive-ocean-warming
# # #
The first,
>”scientists have proved that events have either been triggered or exacerbated by climate change”
But was it man-made climate change? CO2-forced models don’t mimic climate so they cannot have proved it by use of those. Neither can they use one for their extreme weather attribution.
The second,
>”oceans have absorbed more than 90% of the warming caused by greenhouse gases”
Incredibly bogus. Oceans are warmed in the tropics by insolation and ocean heat accumulation is simply the result of the highest solar activity in 1000, 3000, or 11,000 yrs depending on which study.
After 25 years of investigation and 5 assessment reports, the IPCC still doesn’t have a physical mechanism for GHG ocean heating, just speculation – “air-sea fluxes”. No citation, nothing. That’s because it’s an impossibility as documented by Dr Roy Clark in his US EPA Submission 6/17/09, see:
‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2’ – The Air-Ocean Interface
http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf
Dr Clark models ocean heating by solar driver:
“The solar heating of the ocean may be simulated using a simple Beer’s law model as illustrated in Figure 2. This was used to determine ocean solar heating and cooling as a function of depth over a 1 year period at 30° latitude with the solar constant set to 1365 W.m-2. The model depth resolution was 1 m and the time step was 0.5 hours. The calculated results are shown in Figure 3. They are consistent with Argo Float data such as the examples shown in Figure 1. The model was then extended to simulate changes in the solar constant due to the sunspot cycle from 1650 to 2000 using a scale factor of 1 W.m-2 per 100 change in the annual sunspot index.11 The calculated change in ocean temperatures at 90 m depth is shown in Figure 4. There is a distinct decrease to the end of the Maunder Minimum followed by an overall increase of almost 0.5 C from 1750 to 2000. This simple model clearly demonstrates that small changes in the solar constant influence ocean temperatures and cause climate change. Subsurface ocean layers are transported over long distances by wind driven ocean currents without any interaction with the surface.”
Then debunks the GHG attribution,
“It is also straightforward to show that a 1.7 W.m-2 increase in downward LWIR flux at the ocean surface cannot change ocean temperatures. Water is almost completely opaque to LWIR radiation.18 The LWIR absorption/emission depth is less than 1 mm, so the interaction volume is at most 10 cm3. An increase in downward LWIR flux at the ocean surface of 1.7 W.m-2 heats the surface layer at a rate of at least 2.4 C per minute. The ocean responds by rapidly increasing the surface evaporation rate by 1.7 W.m-2, or 2.7 g.hr-1 of water for ideal ‘clear sky’ conditions.”
From 2009 but we are still reading the miss-attribution in 2014.
Back when climate change was faster and weather more severe…”At Sydney, New South Wales, Mr. Russell found that during 11 years the level was constantly falling at about an inch, a year, but by the last accounts received it. was again stationary. ”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/108882702?zoomLevel=6.
Then it could all be due to the global conveyor as they reckoned back when Greenland was going through greater climate changes..
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/139762079?
Back to higher ground.
Handjive and D McD,
It would be interesting to inspect that benchmark and check the tide range at the Isle of the Dead.
It’s 50 cms long and the tide range is “about a metre”.
I am certain that Lempriere would have put the mark at MSL as that was always the base point for all tide data.
If you don’t believe that just check some of Mathew Flinders’ charts.
From all those low tide photos I have seen, it looks like it is still pretty close to MSL where it was initially put.
If it is above current MSL by a few cms, that is probably the sum of post glacial rebound and SL fall since 1841.
CSIRO are getting behind in their homework.
Or maybe the dog ate it.
Jennifer its incredibly refreshing to read such a brilliant article and hopefully Lloyd will get wind of it.
All the tsunamis mentioned in the Geographic may not have been caused by volcanic activity, I’ll follow it up.
Thee 1491 tsunami was caused by a comet falling south of New Zealand.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/240420231_Analysis_of_the_Mahuika_comet_impact_tsunami_hypothesis
In the last 12 months the tide range at Hobart is more than 1.5 metres [low 0.12, high 1.64] and at the Isle of the Dead which is more exposed to the ocean at Port Arthur, ocean hydraulics should increase that.
Looks to me as though it is exactly where Lempriere put it on Ross’ instructions.
Bang on MSL.
Occam’s Razor strikes again.
“Despite homogenization”? That will sting in certain quarters, I’m sure. Thumbs up.
>”oceans have absorbed more than 90% of the warming caused by greenhouse gases”
Grrrr, here it is again in the SMH:
“Sea temperatures are a crucial yardstick for global warming as the ocean stores more than 90 per cent of human-induced excess heat.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/oceans-heating-up-faster-than-we-thought-study-20141005-10qgfn.html#ixzz3FLP3G7v1
Bogus pseudo-science. Reporter Hannah Francis appears to have lost the journalistic ability to fact check.
>”oceans have absorbed more than 90% of the warming caused by greenhouse gases” – Science Mag
>“Sea temperatures are a crucial yardstick for global warming as the ocean stores more than 90 per cent of human-induced excess heat.” – SMH
The reporters have obviously just read the Abstract which states:
“Abstract. The global ocean stores more than 90% of the heat associated with observed greenhouse-gas-attributed global warming.”
‘Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming’
Paul J. Durack, Peter J. Gleckler, FelixW. Landerer and Karl E. Taylor
Nature Climate Change DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2389 [link]
How did that statement get through peer review? These “scientists” are peddling snake oil and so is the journal Nature Climate Change. And the media is disseminating the falsity.
Featured at Climate Etc (but the above ignored), hotlinks to papers here;
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/05/evidence-of-deep-ocean-cooling/
The other paper featured:
‘Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade’
W. Llovel, J. K.Willis, F.W. Landererand and I. Fukumori
Nature Climate Change. DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2387 [link]
I note the second paper (Llovel et al) doesn’t make the anthro attribution directly:
“Abstract. As the dominant reservoir of heat uptake in the climate system, the world’s oceans provide a critical measure of global climate change.”
I am going to go out on a bit of a limb here and suggest that perhaps the data re SLR is suffering from a similar problem to the data re temperature?
Expressing a global average or a national average is not really a useful figure because across the globe and even on differing coasts the tides and oceanic behaviour can be so highly variable.
In places like NW Australia and the Thames in England the tide ranges are quite extraordinary compared to the tide ranges in places like the eastern coast of Australia or in many areas of the Mediterranean, like Crete.
As already mentioned on many occasions here, coastal inundation is also caused by erosion, storm activity and by other factors such as subsidence.
Mushing all that information up into national and global averages and then trying to tease a preconceived trend out of it is really not a good tool to help inform policy and planning in coastal areas.
In comments at Climate Etc:
Bob Ludwick | October 5, 2014 at 10:01 pm |
Awhile back I was in the midst of venting my outrage about something or other here regarding ocean heating and the effect on sea level. In the process, I decided that I needed the coefficient of thermal expansion of seawater to get my numbers right, so with the help of Google, I found this:
http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=kt167nb66r&chunk.id=d3_4_ch03&toc.id=ch03&brand=eschol%20
Bottom line: the coefficient of expansion of seawater isn’t a number; it is a table. It varies wildly with temperature, salinity, and pressure and for some combinations can be strongly negative. I. e., more heat makes it contract. Oh, and don’t forget, the specific heat ALSO varies with all of the above, too, so unless you know a LOT about the water being heated you can’t predict how much a given injection of energy will affect its volume OR its temperature.
So simply saying that a certain change in ocean temperature will result in a known, calculable change in sea level is naive, to say the least. SOMEONE may in fact know how to do it; it isn’t me. But that one link above, written by people who DO know a lot about seawater and how it behaves under various stimuli, taught me enough to be very suspicious when I see someone treating sea level variability as some sort of ‘thermometer’ for the oceans at large, and then treating variations in the OUTPUT of that thermometer as ‘the signature’ of ACO2.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/05/evidence-of-deep-ocean-cooling/#comment-635290
‘Bogus pseudo-science. Reporter Hannah Francis appears to have lost the journalistic ability to fact check.’
Yep, nothing short of propaganda.
The so-called global warming crisis is one of climate obsessed people playing fast and loose with the truth.
The climate obsessed response to their failure to correctly predict or describe the world climate has been to shout down their critics and tout their fear mongering claims with even less review and fact checking. Something as basic as sea level, if serious people were studying it, would be to deal with known tidal marks and subsidence issues. Instead the climate obsessed rely on fabricated claims about drowning atolls and computer models of future doom.
Distilling the article and comments down to the essence, what do we have? Satellite derived trends of 3.2 mm/year. Trends of 3.3 mm/year from ‘cherry-picked’ tide gauge records. 0.65 mm/yr claimed for Fort Denison. 8 mm/yr for the West coast. 0 mm for Brisbane. Spangled Drongo’s assessment of the Lempriere-Ross benchmark and his local experience with HAT on the Gold Coast.
So, just what HAS been happening on the Australian east coast? Has there been ANY noticeable SLR? What do we agree on? At <1 mm/yr, we would be largely oblivious to the possible 3-4 inches of rise since 1900. But at 3 mm/yr, we'd be looking at around 12 inches. That's a lot, and should be pretty obvious you'd think?
1904
“Professor David says it must be conceded that recent discoveries along the coast line near Sydney point to a slow subsidence of the land.”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/113308486?zoomLevel=6
1910
“a few pounds will put the whole matter right”
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/115253383?zoomLevel=6
Beyond funny
A new post about deep ocean heat by Bob Tisdale shows that Trenberth’s deep missing heat is still missing. Indeed it’s a travesty. And a recent post by Wunsch et al has come to the same conclusion.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/the-heat-went-to-the-oceans-excuse-and-trenberths-missing-heat-is-awol-deep-ocean-has-not-warmed-since-2005/
It looks like the so called extra heat in the system never, ever arrived in the first place but was perhaps reflected by clouds. If certain clouds increased by just 1% over a few decades they would easily conquer the impact of increased co2 emissions.
Vienna Climate Waltz More Data By Ed Caryl
Vienna before & after homogenisation
The data file is complete from 1880 to the present, which is unusual. There are only two files in the GISS database, GHCN data before and after GISS homogenization. Here is a plot of those two files.
Via notrickszone:
http://notrickszone.com/2014/10/05/vienna-is-actually-now-cooling-and-not-warming-as-media-and-some-scientists-are-claiming/
Graeme
>”0 mm for Brisbane”
That’s from the satellite map on the AVISO page:
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Map_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.gif
Jan-1993 to May-2014, 21.33 yrs. Not the same timeframe as the other trends. The pocket of green (0) around Brisbane could also include some yellow (2.5 – 3).
State of the Environment 2011 states:
Queensland
Since the early 1990s, northern Australia has experienced sea level rises of around 7.1 millimetres per year, while eastern Australia has experienced increases of around 2.0–3.3 millimetres per year.
Northern Territory
Since the early 1990s, northern Australia has experienced sea level rises of up to 7.1 millimetres per year.
New South Wales
Since the early 1990s, New South Wales has experienced a sea level rise of approximately 2.1 millimetres per year.
http://www.environment.gov.au/science/soe/2011-report/11-coasts/4-risks/4-3-sea-level-rise
I gave up chasing down the cited source (website change) but keep in mind that these are linear trends that do not necessarily represent the data statistically. A curve or moving average is probably more appropriate if the data does not resemble a line in the first place.
I invite you to look at the following:
The nine NZ tide gauges with 21st century data from PMSL:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
Tauranga (Salisbury Wharf)
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/1590_high.png
Napier
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/1750_high.png
Wellington Harbour
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/221_high.png
Dunedin (Port Chalmers)
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/1643_high.png
Bluff
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/213_high.png
Nelson
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/787_high.png
Port Taranaki
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/996_high.png
Whangarei (Marsden Point)
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/1065_high.png
Chatham Island
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/1920_high.png
Only Wellington and Nelson exhibit any rise this century. The other seven either flat, non-linear fluctuation, or fall.
From the index above, here’s Brisbane, Darwin, and Sydney:
BRISBANE (WEST INNER BAR)
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/822.php
DARWIN
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/935.php
SYDNEY, FORT DENISON 2
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/196.php
Note the hotlinks “Link to larger image of monthly data plot.” and “Link to larger image of annual data plot.” and the data download links.
Just as NZ, none of the data in these 3 AU stations is linear. To describe it as such is bogus.
Just had a comment go into moderation (too many links). Meantime check this out:
BRISBANE (WEST INNER BAR)
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/822_high.png
DARWIN
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/935_high.png
SYDNEY, FORT DENISON 2
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/196_high.png
From PSMSL: http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
None of the data in these 3 AU stations is linear. To describe it as such is bogus
NORFOLK ISLAND
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/821_high.png
LORD HOWE ISLAND
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/818_high.png
Apart from the moon’s daily influence plus the occasional flood and earthquake, SL changes are predominantly the result of wind direction and strength.
In the channel country I have camped on a completely arid claypan in windy conditions only to wake up with floodwaters inundating my camp and swag.
This wind drove the Diamantina channel water uphill for miles causing a flood during a drought.
This is happening all over the oceans all the time and is the reason for so many of our ocean currents as they try to re-establish equilibrium.
Also, as these dominating wind patterns continually vary you see the result on Richard C’s interesting links.
Another experience that indicates lack of SLR is from having known many families of many generations in the little ship maintenance business.
With our ever increasing standard of living being seen in the ever increasing size, number and draught of these little ships [or booze-cruisers if you prefer ☺], families who have serviced them for generations would love some SLR to allow their businesses to expand and compete with the more modern, marina based businesses.
Sadly, their established slipways have not been able to cater for the deeper draughted, larger vessels that would enhance their income and they are even losing existing custom because it’s not always as deep as it used to be.
Richard C,
Jim Salinger is up to his old tricks again:
http://theconversation.com/new-zealand-is-drying-out-and-heres-why-32330?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+7+October+2014+-+1967&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+7+October+2014+-+1967+CID_c1e0eccc05260db929b12edf31037cc0&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=New%20Zealand%20is%20drying%20out%20and%20heres%20why
I’m sure NZ, like Aus, over time balances out. Do you have any longer term NZ drought data to submit.
When talking about sea level rise, one of the things I show are two illustrations of the Tower of London, one around 1150, the other 2005, 850 years apart. Both show Traitors Gate well and truly above sea level.
Go to http://www.green-agenda.com/greenland.html
And scroll down a couple of pages you’ll see the photos. They say it all.
Spangled,
>”Do you have any longer term NZ drought data to submit.”
No but refer Salinger’s graph from his post:
https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/60391/area14mp/8x6v9vb6-1412059425.jpg
As my previous complaints in this thread re linear trends, this data is clearly not linear and yet Salinger (or someone) has insisted on imposing a linear trend on it. This is a statistical lie. There was a time (as recent as the 1990s) when Salinger’s graphs never had linear trends on time series data, only moving averages. They were from good papers with none of the propaganda rubbish prevalent now. His linear trends are a relatively recent addition.
And as with ACORN and NZT7 temperature, the DI linear trend is meaningless unless the 1800s are known. If you extrapolate back in time linearly from 1941 the NZ drought index must have been extraordinarily low back in the 1800s. I don’t think so. 1946/47 looks to be an outlier too which drags down that trend. The index went positive to negative 76/77 and stayed negative until 96/97. This was at a time when CO2 was rising but according to Salinger the CO2 effect kicked in 1990:
“Between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing — the warming effect on our climate — because of long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide.”
Maybe, except there’s no relationship whatsoever between CO2 and the drought index from 1941 – 1997
At least in respect to the SAM, Salinger only invokes ozone but even that is only an “association”. Back where he worked at NIWA, Research scientist Sam Dean is not so reticent, from Stuff:
“In an international paper released this week, New Zealand scientists have analysed climate models around the extreme weather event, which knocked at least $1.3 billion out of New Zealand’s economy. While the natural variations played a leading role, human activity was a definite accomplice, according to National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research scientist Sam Dean.With two Victoria University and two fellow Niwa scientists, Dean used computer modelling to compare the 2013 climate over New Zealand with a simulation of the world “that might have been” without the greenhouse gases and chlorofluorocarbons that people have pumped into the atmosphere. “We found that the drought was a little more intense than it would have been without climate change.” In summer, greenhouse gases and the ozone hole intensified the high-pressure systems that brought dry weather, Dean said.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10568966/Drought-lengthened-by-climate-change
>”greenhouse gases and the ozone hole intensified the high-pressure systems that brought dry weather”
From models that don’t actually mimic climate. I’ve yet to see a physics-based explanation for the process of “intensification”. And intensification implies a process happening anyway without the influence of GHGs or ozone. Which is exactly what Dean concedes – “natural variations played a leading role”.
Now look at the SAM index graph from Salinger:
https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/60392/area14mp/q5fqj77p-1412059426.jpg
That’s not linear either, it’s obviously more likely cyclic and in a few years will be back in negative phase. Salinger’s “our climate becoming droughtier” as a result of GHG warming (not much of that now in NZ) and ozone+SAM will just be a byline in the climate story. Pride of place going to Dr David Viner from Salinger’s other workplace, (CRU) of the University of East Anglia from 2000:
….within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Thanks Richard.
Yes, Salinger’s DI trend is cherry picking and meaningless.
ACO2 [which he is blaming, naturally] is actually the non-problem with droughts as higher levels help crop production.
One thing we do know is that drought is a completely natural phenomenon and there have been some monsters in historic times during low atmospheric CO2.
It never rains in southern California.
Well, not for 200 years occasionally:
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more
Sorry for the O/T, mod. No more on Salinger.
Here is another global SL study from Holgate that shows a higher rate of change in the first half of the 20th century.
First period 1904 to 1954 = 1.91mm/year Second period 1954 to 2003= 1.42mm/year So where is the impact from increased co2 emissions?
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Holgate/sealevel_change_poster_holgate.pdf
Here is his summary at bottom left of the poster————
Integrated sea level curve for the 20th Century:
When the decadal rates of change are integrated over the entire
twentieth century we obtain the figure on the right. Sea level can be seen
to have risen around 170 mm on average over the past century.
The mean rate for the twentieth century calculated in this way is
1.67±0.04 mm/yr. The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly
higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the
century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).
Once again skeptics are right:
The so-called missing heat is not in the oceans.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/
Just a little note. John Daly’s old blog has a long and detailed article on the Ross/Lempriere tidal benchmark on the isle of the dead at Port Arthur. Daly’s conclusion was that from 1841 to 2002 the benchmark indicates that the sea level fell around 16cm. His hypothesis is that 11cm of the fall was due to a series of uplifting earthquakes from 1873 to 1882 off Tasmania’s East Coast and 4cm due to the continuing glacial rebound. In essence the best estimate is that the sea level has been almost dead level over the intervening 160 years. Note: The three biggest quakes of more than 2000 recorded measured 6.3, 6.8 and 6.9.
Also there was also an old tidal gauge that operated here in Williamstown (Melbourne) from 1857 to 1943. Two other tidal guages commenced operations at the same time, one at Point Lonsdale and the other at Portland. What a pity these records are not part of the BOM’s Tide Gauge Metadata.
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/part2.htm
http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/hazards/earthquake/basics/historic#heading-18
https://www.onmydoorstep.com.au/heritage-listing/1225/tide-gauge-house
Once again, there seems to be a ship load of conflicting opinions.
The guts of the matter seems to always be the same.
I.E., Empirical data vs computer modelling.
Maybe the ABC/CSIRO/BOM should host a MASSDEBATE on these issues.
Q & A clearly exposed David Suzuki as a climate fraud.
It would be great to see his mates showcased.
Cheers, Slowlurnr.
‘New paper shows global sea level rise has greatly decelerated since ~2002, opposite of predictions’
The Hockey Schtick
……notable findings from the paper include:
1) The positive global sea level rise trend is almost entirely due to an apparent huge “bulge” located in the Western equatorial Pacific region [Fig 12 immediately below, and the “bulge” 3-D illustrated by StevenGoddard.wordpress.com in the 3rd figure below].
2) Conversely, all areas shown in blue have experienced a drop in altimetric sea levels [different from relative sea levels which are more dependent upon land height changes] from 1993-2010, including most of the East and West coasts of North and South America.
3) As the 2nd figure below indicates, this “bulge” is almost entirely steric sea level rise from thermal expansion, as opposed to eustatic sea level rise from melting of ice. The fact that the “bulge” is so localized in the equatorial Western Pacific points to trade winds or ocean oscillations such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as responsible, rather than any effect from greenhouse gases, which would cause a generalized, not highly localized, effect on ocean thermal expansion or eustatic sea level rise from melting ice.
4) – 7) follows
Ocean Sci. Discuss., 11, 2029-2071, 2014
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/11/2029/2014/
doi:10.5194/osd-11-2029-2014
Improved sea level record over the satellite altimetry era (1993–2010) from the Climate Change Initiative Project
M. Ablain1, A. Cazenave2, G. Larnicol1, M. Balmaseda11, P. Cipollini7, Y. Faugère1, M. J. Fernandes10,14, O. Henry2, J. A. Johannessen3, P. Knudsen6, O. Andersen6, J. Legeais1, B. Meyssignac2, M. Picot12, M. Roca8, S. Rudenko9, M. G. Scharffenberg4, D. Stammer4, G. Timms5, and J. Benveniste13
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/10/new-paper-shows-global-sea-level-rise.html
Ablain et al (2014), linked above.
Abstract. Sea level is one of the 50 Essential Climate Variables (ECVs) listed by the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) in climate change monitoring. In the last two decades, sea level has been routinely measured from space using satellite altimetry techniques. In order to address a number of important scientific questions such as: “Is sea level rise accelerating?”, “Can we close the sea level budget?”, “What are the causes of the regional and interannual variability?”, “Can we already detect the anthropogenic forcing signature and separate it from the internal/natural climate variability?”, and “What are the coastal impacts of sea level rise?”, the accuracy of altimetry-based sea level records at global and regional scales needs to be significantly improved.
Sarc/ Because we’re not getting the right answers.
** chuckle **
My pick at this point is “close the SL budget”
🙂
I can remember a fairly hostile reception when I used to link to SL studies from WUWT, the HS or No tricks etc, but it doesn’t matter what Luke etc thought then or now, the truth will come out eventually.
Ablain et al is another paper that makes a bland anthro ocean heating claim with no supporting evidence of mechanism i.e. they lie:
1 Introduction
Global warming in response to the anthropogenic green-house gases emissions has
already shown several visible consequences, among them the increase of the Earth’s
mean air temperature and ocean heat content,……
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/11/2029/2014/osd-11-2029-2014-print.pdf
The miss-attribution continues unabated. Soon, it must reach a tipping point.
This has got to be a classic ‘bi polar’ ABC report on ice, including sea ice (which of course also plays a role in sea levels)
😉
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s4102463.htm
This comment is particularly ironic:
“JULIENNE STROEVE: Well the Antarctic sea ice has been interesting and I think it’s puzzling a lot of scientists because right now it’s doing the opposite of what we may expect under, you know, warming.
Right now we hit an all-time record high in the total extent for the winter ice cover in Antarctica. ”
My question:
How is it possible that this phenomenon is ‘puzzling a lot of scientists’ when we are repeatedly told that as far as global warming and AGW is concerned “THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!” ?
Debbie >My pick at this point is “close the SL budget”
New terms – “error budget” and “interesting” (Ablain et al).
Page 10 – 6 Error budget of sea level
“Although improvements were made, the SL_cci products still contain remaining errors
at different time scales. In order to inform users about these errors, we have established
an error budget dedicated to the main spatio-temporal scales (i.e., global and regional,
long-term – 5–10 years or more –, interannual – 10 years), < 0.5mmyear−1, 0.3mmyear−1
Interannual signals (< 5 years), 10 years), < 3mmyear−1, 1mmyear−1
[Or, global averaging provides the illusion of greater accuracy]
And comparison with the models is "interesting", page 7:
5.1 Assessment based on numerical ocean models
"Differences between models and any observed estimations were much larger than the differences between observational products. The spatial patterns of these differences were suggestive of model error. For instance, small scale sea level variability is much larger in observed products than in models, which is consistent with insufficient resolution in the models."
"A first look at the three GCMs (General Circulation Model), NorESM (Norwegian
Earth System Model), Hadley and IPSL (Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace), reveals large
individual differences in the trend of sea level change, both regarding the overall trend
as well as in its regional characteristic changes."
"This intercomparison of the SL_cci trends with the trends derived from the three GCMs is interesting…….."
# # #
Sarc and miss-attribution aside, quite a good state-of-play paper.
Some lines went missing, this on page 11 is the kicker:
“At the regional scale, the regional trend uncertainty is of the order of 2–3mmyear−1.”
“Finally, the 2–3mmyear−1 uncertainty on regional sea level trends remains a significant error compared to the 1mmyear−1 GCOS requirement, even if this project has led to a 0.5 to 1.5mmyear−1 reduction”
And see error table page 16 (Global 0.5mmyear−1 vs Regional 3mmyear−1):
Table 2. Error budget of SL_cci products for the main climate scales
Whatever happened to Houston and Dean:
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1?prevSearch=%5BAllField%3A+houston+dean%5D&searchHistoryKey=&
Watson:
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1
And the PSMSL data:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
PSMSL upthread cohers – lots of it. I got the word from Ray the moderator – too many links. I copied from a CCG comment but on reflection it was a bit much.
But yes, there’s a disconnect with the literature for a start. Much more irritating for me is the interpretation and characterization of the observations by linear trends. Upthread I’ve given 9 examples of PSMSL tide guages around NZ with 21st century data. Only one, Wellington, can be described as linear rise. For the 21st century there’s no evidence of NZ-wide SL rise of any sort from PSMSL.
Also upthread, Norfolk Is and Lord Howe in the Tasman. Norfolk flat 1994 – 2008 then a sharp rise, Lord Howe flat all the way.
Then Brisbane, Darwin, and Sydney. Brisbane 2000s little different to 1960s, Darwin a rise in the 1990s nothing since, Sydney a sharp rise 1950 not much since and certainly not linear like Wellington.
‘State of the Environment 2011’ of course (linked upthread), characterizes thus:
Since the early 1990s
“Queensland has experienced increases of around 2.0–3.3 millimetres per year.”
“Northern Australia has experienced sea level rises of up to 7.1 millimetres per year.”
“New South Wales has experienced a sea level rise of approximately 2.1 millimetres per year.”
# # #
No, that is not what was experienced. The 3 tide guages do not exhibit that behaviour.
Based on century-long tide gauge records at Fremantle, Western Australia (from 1897 to present), Auckland Harbour in New Zealand (1903 to present), Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour (1914 to present) and Pilot Station at Newcastle (1925 to present), the analysis finds there was a “consistent trend of weak deceleration” from 1940 to 2000.
Climate change researcher Howard Brady, at Macquarie University, said yesterday the recent research meant sea levels rises accepted by the CSIRO were “already dead in the water as having no sound basis in probability”.
“In all cases, it is clear that sea-level rise, although occurring, has been decelerating for at least the last half of the 20th century, and so the present trend would only produce sea level rise of around 15cm for the 21st century.“
Dr Brady said the divergence between the sea-level trends from models and sea-level trends from the tide gauge records was now so great “it is clear there is a serious problem with the models”.
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2011/07/22/sea-level-rises-decelerating/
Sorry Richard, I missed your PSMSL post.
If it wasn’t serious, the increasingly confused and shrill evidence being put forward for AGW would be comical.
For instance sea level rise is now being used to prove the missing heat is in the ocean. I know others have discussed the 2 recent contradictory papers which are discussed at Watts:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/the-heat-went-to-the-oceans-excuse-and-trenberths-missing-heat-is-awol-deep-ocean-has-not-warmed-since-2005/
And Curry:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/05/evidence-of-deep-ocean-cooling/#more-17028
The 2nd paper by Paul J. Durack, Peter J. Gleckler, FelixW. Landerer and Karl E. Taylor is particularly amusing; they say:
“We find that the partitioning of northern and southern hemispheric simulated sea surface height changes are consistent with precise altimeter observations,whereas the hemispheric partitioning of simulated upper-ocean warming is inconsistent with observed in-situ-based ocean heat content estimates. Relying on the close correspondence between hemispheric-scale ocean heat content and steric changes, we adjust the poorly constrained Southern Hemisphere observed warming estimates so that hemispheric ratios are consistent with the broad range of modelled results.”
This gave me a strong sense of deja vu and I realised the same tactic had been used before by the alarmists. That was the infamous paper by Robert J. Allen, Steven C. Sherwood: Warming maximum in the tropical upper atmosphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geoscience 25 May 2008
http://lubos.mtol.gogglepages.com/sherwood-allen-ngeo-2008.pdf
Allen and Sherwood couldn’t find their missing heat using thermometers so because the AGW models predicted wind shear they concluded the heat was there because the same instruments which could not be relied upon to measure temperature measured some wind shear.
The Durack effort is similar. They claim sea level rise observations are consistent with modelling, but OHC modelling is not, so they use the sea level rise modelling to prove an increase in OHC.
In respect of SST I note Spencer finds no increase from 1987:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/HadSST3-thru-Feb14.png
Roger Pielke snr has the same criticism of the models versus observations. Here is his comment from Judith Curry’s blog.
This is more to do with ocean, surface and troposphere warming, but it just adds to their culpability.
rpielke | October 6, 2014 at 9:41 am | Reply
This is a remarkable statement
“the warming of the upper ocean predicted by these models did not agree with observations; particularly in the southern hemisphere.They inferred from this that upper ocean warming rates in the southern hemisphere have been underestimated – that it was the previous observations that were inaccurate and that the models were correct.”
When observations and models disagree, to accept the model is an inversion of the scientific process! This is a systemic problem with these studies. For example, in the 2006 CCSP 1.1 report
http://data.globalchange.gov/assets/51/56/6d7da49e1f93bef673d56ff6aa6a/sap1-1-final-all.pdf
this is what is written in the Executive Summary with respect to
“Tropical Temperature Results (20°S to 20°N)”
“Although the majority of observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere, some observational data sets show the opposite behavior. Almost all model simulations show more warming in the troposphere than at the surface. This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from
errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open.”
Clearly, the message with that climate science community is that model results trump observations. This illustrates how absurd the discussion of climate attribution and projections has become.
I hope this isn’t deleted before others can have a look at it. Steve McIntyre compares the much changed and messy Pages 2K study to the Hanhijarvi study of the past 2000 years.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/10/07/pages2k-vs-the-hanjiharvi-reconstruction/#more-20048
The hanhijarvi study shows a higher Med WP , a definite LIA and a lower Modern WP. Pages 2K have now used some of their data up the right way but Steve is still far from happy.
“Opera House Still Above Sea Level: Despite Homogenisation”
Then tim’s Hawkesbury pad is also?
Speaking of moon go out and look at it right now!
‘The miss-attribution continues unabated. Soon, it must reach a tipping point.’
The hiatus cannot last forever and with sol in a slump the planet is on a slippery slope. So in a short while the Klimatariat is in for a rude shock.
We have a beautiful clear night here.
But of course no clouds means it’s a bit chilly.
Also means a great view of the eclipse.
🙂
Skeptics predicted that OHC was not behaving as predicted by alarmists.
They are proven correct.
Temperature homogenization has been done with the effect of hiding information and deceptively creating the appearance of unusual warming that is not actually happening. As skeptics suspected.
Sea levels are not actually rising or changing in any significant way.
As skeptics suspected.
Storms, droughts, extreme weather, are all flat lined globally.
As skeptics pointed out.
It is time, as Jennifer pointed out, for a new paradigm. It is long past time for a new paradigm.
All this reminds me of a pearl of wisdom ( ball of bullshit ) that came from the head of CSIRO’s Land and Water Division a decade or more ago.
MOST OF THE MD BASINS RIVERS ARE SHOWING INREASES IN SALINITY.
The observational data clearly showed this was not the case.
Dr John Williams ( Wentworth Group Alarmist ) was talking through his hat.
Back in the dark ages. the final year of our Engineering course devoted 2hrs a week for half the year to ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOUR.
Computers must have made this learning redundant.
Cheers, Slowlurnr.
Thursday, and the Conversation has a post exclusively for Ms. Jen.
An independent inquiry into the Bureau of Meteorology? Bring it on
Neville Nicholls: “The attacks on the Bureau data appear to have been triggered by Australia’s record warmth in 2013.
This record warm year doesn’t sit well with the meme of “global warming has stopped”
https://theconversation.com/an-independent-inquiry-into-the-bureau-of-meteorology-bring-it-on-32692
Which one of the 53 excuses for the hiatus in Doomsday Global Warming does Uncle Nev think is the ‘biggest meme’?
cohers, re Durack et al. I made this comment at JN:
[Durack et al] – “Relying on the close correspondence between hemispheric-scale ocean heat content and steric changes,……”
Not that close
OHC trends NH 0-700m
http://oi39.tinypic.com/23r96ko.jpg
OHC trends SH 0-700m
http://oi41.tinypic.com/13zv6na.jpg
MSL trends (not quite thermosteric but close enough)
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Map_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.gif
Take a look at the following:
North of Australia
Around PNG
Around Madagascar
Tasman Sea
Sth Atlantic off Sth America
Mid Atlantic
NASA said they can’t find the heat in the deep oceans and they are extremely .disappointed
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4321
egg,
The place to find the missing heat is in the assumption there is any missing heat.
It is farcical to claim there is such a thing as ‘missing heat’ in the first place, if you consider the implications.
The missing heat has gone missing from Antarctica, because global temperature rise made it go away. (Somewhere)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2784196/Sea-ice-surrounding-Antarctica-reaches-record-levels-hits-20-MILLION-square-kilometers.html
Simple really, only a “denier” would argue that it is icier because it is colder. A climertolergist would know, that because a computer says it is warming, that the heat, mischievous stuff, is hiding somewhere.
Can I get a grant from some Uni to go sit on the Great Barrier Reef and look for it ?
Jen,
FYI
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/10/happy-to-oblige-the-bom/#comments
handjive,
The only people committing fraud are those seeking to confuse a dubious claim about Australia with their conclusion about the entire globe, while denying the pause and missing heat problem at the same time.
The BOM has forgotten the first rule of holes, apparently.
By the way, it is ironic that a site defending so-called global warming would be named “The Conversation” when it does not permit any comments.
But ironic confessions against interest are standard fare for climate obsessed fanatics.
RichardC, what point are you making with the OHC and MSL charts? I thought you were suggesting a lack of correspondence between OHC and MSL trends, but the charts you show point to exactly that? Do I misunderstand?
Here is an update & comparison:
Oct 13, 2014, the Conversation:
CSIRO
15 years from now, our impact on regional sea level will be clear
“Human activity is driving sea levels higher. Australia’s seas are likely to rise by around 70 centimetres by 2100 if nothing is done to combat climate change.
When averaged around the globe, sea level has been rising at a rate of about 1.7 millimetres per year between 1901 and 2010, and about 3.2 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2014.”
https://theconversation.com/15-years-from-now-our-impact-on-regional-sea-level-will-be-clear-31821
* * *
The Lempriere-Ross mark, CSIRO, 2001/2002:
Global predictions are for the rate of change to increase, such that by 2100 sea-level will be between 9 and 88 cm above the 1990 global average sea-level.
For the periods 1990 to 2025 and 1990 to 2050, the projected rises are 3 to 14 cm and 5 to 32 cm respectively (Houghton & Ding 2001).
Already the Port Arthur benchmark is showing a rise in sea-levels of at least 13 cm since 1841, with an average annual rate of 0.8-1.0 mm/year (Pugh, Coleman & Hunter 2002).
http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/casestudy/4/index.php
A bit more info Re: Commander James Clark Ross for historical notes:
In 1839, distinguished naval officer and polar explorer James Clark Ross (1800–1862) set off on an expedition to the Southern Ocean with two ships, HMS Erebus and HMS Terror.
In April 1842, he stopped at Port Louis, (Falkland Is.) primarily to make magnetic field and other measurements, but also to make repairs to his ships which had been badly damaged in the Drake Passage.
Having set up a winter base, he took the opportunity to make careful measurements of sea level relative to two benchmarks cut into the cliffs and marked with brass plaques.
These marks remain in good condition to this day.
This fact, along with the apparent good quality of Ross’s data, has allowed Woodworth’s team to compare the sea level records from 1842 with measurements taken at Port Louis using modern instruments in 1981–1982, 1984 and 2009.
They also used information from nearby Port Stanley, where a permanent tide gauge was operated in the 1960s and 1970s and where NOC has had an operational gauge since 1992.
After correction for air pressure effects and vertical land movement due to geological processes, the researchers find that sea levels rose by an average of around 0.75 millimetres a year between 1842 and the early 1980s.
They point out that this figure is similar to previous estimates for the long-term rate of sea-level rise at Port Arthurin Tasmania, measurements with which Ross was also associated, and at other locations in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
However, they also find evidence that the rate of sea-level rise has accelerated over recent decades.
Specifically, they estimate that sea levels around the Falkland Islands have risen by an average of around 2.5 millimetres a year since 1992, a figure consistent with measurements made by satellite radar altimeters over the same period.
http://noc.ac.uk/news/measuring-sea-level-rise-falklands
One more comment (link)
John Daly’s response —
Tasmanian Sea Levels:
The `Isle of the Dead’ Revisited
by John L. Daly
2nd February 2003
(parts1 & 2)
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/
John Daly, a thorn in the green side.
* * *
+ the 2002 paper (pdf):
http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/ihr_paper.pdf
Pugh, Hunter, Coleman, Watson
Thanks for that handjive. I’ve read Daly’s piece before but not sure I have seen the original paper. Will reread both!
Bad Moon Rising
Jennifer, you’r my kind of girl.