JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



South Pacific sea levels – Best records show little or no rise?!

Are the small islands of the South Pacific in danger of disappearing, glug, under the waves of the rising ocean? Will thousands of poor inhabitants be forced to emigrate, as desperate refugees, to Australia and New Zealand? Has any of this got anything to do with man-made emissions of CO2?

By looking closely at the records, it turns out that the much advertised rising sea levels in the South Pacific depend on anomalous depressions of the ocean during 1997 and 1998 thanks to an El Nino and two tropical cyclones. The Science and Public Policy Institute has released a report by Vincent Gray which compares 12 Pacific Island records and shows that in many cases it’s these anomalies that set the trends… and if the anomaly is removed, sea levels appear to be more or less constant since the Seaframe measurements began around 1993.

Sea levels: The El Nino / tropical storm anomaly in 1997-1998 is clear. A long sustained rise is not.

Take the infamous Tuvalu for example. It’s sea level rise was reported as 5.7 mm/year back in  2008. Now it’s calculated as 3.7mm/year. But look at the Seaframe Graph – its flat. It is universally forecast to disappear by 2050. New Zealand has even agreed to accept the “inevitable” rush of refugees, yet the best records available show that sea levels have not risen at all since 1993. It’s not that it will take decades, or hundreds of years to submerge, there’s no reason to suppose it will submerge at all (asteroid strikes excepted). It’s a place that naturally is reshaped and reformed as the ocean moves sand from one part to another, and the corals shift and grow with the changes.

Tuvalu sea levels show little trend.

There may indeed be legitimate refugees from some areas, but it’s most likely due to subsidence, rather than sea-level rises.

ABSTRACT
The SEAFRAME sea-level study on 12 Pacific islands is the most comprehensive study of sea level and local climate ever carried out there. The sea level records obtained have all been assessed by the anonymous authors of the official reports as indicating positive trends in sea level over all 12 Pacific Islands involved since the study began in 1993 until the latest report in June 2010. In almost all cases the positive upward trends depend almost exclusively on the depression of the ocean in 1997 and 1998 caused by two tropical cyclones. If these and other similar disturbances are ignored, almost all of the islands have shown negligible change in sea level from 1993 to 2010, particularly after the installation of GPS levelling equipment in 2000.

Map: Islands of the south pacific

The study includes the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

One of the big problems with measuring sea-levels is that everything is in motion. The tides shift, the sand moves, and even the bedrock can subside. The Seaframe stations are state of the art, and regularly checked to compensate for all these changes.

The Seaframe equipment used to measure sea levels is carefully recalibrated every 18 months to take these factors into account.

Precise levelling of the height of the SEAFRAME sea level sensor relative to an array of land-based benchmarks is undertaken by Geosciences Australia every eighteen months where possible. The precision to which the survey must be performed is dependent on the distance Km (km) between the SEAFRAME sensor benchmark and the primary tide gauge benchmark (TGBM) and forms part of the project’s design specifications.

Seaframe for measuring sea levels

Seaframe for measuring sea levels:

The claimed sea level trends look alarmingly large, yet calculated trends can be misleading.

South Pacific Sea Levels 1992 - 2010

South Pacific Sea Levels 1992 - 2010

The people of Tuvalu are worried, and it appears, their anxiety and fears may simply be a product of those who want to draw attention to their own pet projects for their own selfish goals. Though the climate change fears have attracted some extra foreign aid to the country, how much of that filters through to the worried mums and dads, and how much just feeds the bureaucrats with their taxes?

We don’t want a mass migration but most people are worried for their kids. They see no future here in 50 years.

“If sea levels rise 0.5m in that time we won’t be entirely under water, but with king tides and storm surges we will be in severe trouble.”

The long-term future of Tuvalu as a viable nation is being considered by the Government.

The bottom line

No matter what was heating the Earth, sea levels would rise, the rise in and of itself tells us nothing about the cause of the warming. What’s amazing is that so much of our CO2 has been unleashed since 1993, yet at least in the South Pacific, it’s not clear that sea levels have risen.

Read the  full assessment of the South Pacific Sea Levels thanks to the Science and Public Policy Institute.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.0/10 (11 votes cast)
South Pacific sea levels – Best records show little or no rise?!, 7.0 out of 10 based on 11 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/22uk6y2

103 comments to South Pacific sea levels – Best records show little or no rise?!

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    The Warmists have an unshakable emotional need to be right about their man-made global warming fantasy, which is why they refuse to enter into detailed logical debate about the issues.

    Their lack of courage in this matter is damaging to all environmental science.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Steve S

    Hello & sorry to go off topic somewhat.

    janama was very helpful once before here providing me with a link to a paper I couldn’t find myself.
    I have another request of which I’m sure someone here will be able to help me with.

    Does anyone have a link to the Full Paper –

    <<<<>>>>>
    Thank to anyone that can help.

    Steve


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve S

    Sorry, something went wrong then.

    Anyone with a link to -

    Why Hasn’t Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?. J. Climate, 23, 2453-2464
    doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI3461.1
    Schwartz, Stephen E., Robert J. Charlson, Ralph A. Kahn, John A. Ogren, Henning Rodhe, 2010:

    Thanks again

    Steve


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Even if the planet has warmed by 0.7c since the end of the LIA and it was all caused by humans ( nonsense I know) there is bugger all we can do about it.

    China, India and the developing world will account for 75% of the increase in co2 emissions in the next 50 years, so all of the first world could retire and live in caves and it wouldn’t alter the temp or SL rise in the slightest.( I don’t believe in CAGW at all BTW. )

    NZ has just brought in an ETS or similar nonsense and they only produce 0.1% of co2 emissions, add Australia and combined we only produce about 1.4%.

    That 1.4% will be replaced by the developing world in a matter of six to twelve months, how stupid is NZ’s sarifice.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Here’s a link Steve

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI3461.1?journalCode=clim

    Good article Jo – this sea level BS has to stop and this article helps. It also confirms all the readings Spangled Drongo has made recently showing possible drop in sea level in our region.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    BBC: June 2010 – Low Lying Islands growing not sinking.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10222679
    “A new geological study has shown that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.

    The islands of Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, because of coral debris and sediment. (the process that Darwin discovered!!)

    The study, featured in the magazine the New Scientist, predicts that the islands will still be there in 100 years’ time. ….. ”

    Darwin knew they COULD NOT sink, what about the IPCC? !!!!

    THE

    STRUCTURE AND DISTRIBUTION

    OF

    CORAL REEFS

    Charles Darwin: 1842

    http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F271&pageseq=1


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Are the Carteret Islanders still being evacuated to Bougainville? And is this because of catastrophic rising sea levels or attacking polar bears?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    What I don’t get is why 1998 shows up as the hottest year in all the “global temperature” data (like GISS, etc) but it shows as an exceptionally low year for seal level on all these islands. If sea level correlates with temperature, shouldn’t 1998 be UP in all the graphs above?


    Report this

    11

  • #
    Richard C

    Joanne,

    I am sure you are already parsing the following quote:

    “He said the fundamental principles of climatology, such as the role of carbon dioxide in global warming, were beyond dispute.”

    From The Australian article: Humans affect climate change
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/humans-affect-climate-change/story-fn59niix-1225906508258

    The quote is attributed to Kurt Lambeck, immediate past president of the Australian Academy of Science. The article title apparently “expresses for the first time the consensus among Australia’s top climate scientists on the evidence for human-caused global warming.”

    The consensus aspect is obviously contentious but it was the “beyond dispute” element that drew my attention.

    Being from NZ where the Court will soon become involved in the debate (but cognisant of the ETS) and given the US Supreme Court judgment re the EPA “CO2 is an endangerment to humans” finding despite presentation of evidence to the contrary (the NZ ETS being an Act of Parliament and therefore legal endorsement of same), it seems to me that the “beyond dispute” notion must be eradicated in order to have evidence such as this sea level rise assessment taken into consideration at govt. policy level – anywhere.

    The Courts are the adjudicator in the climate change debate (like it or not) and in the US and NZ already, the supposed “principle” has had traction. If NZ’s NIWA must be taken to Court to achieve an honest temperature record (success not guaranteed), then the “principle” may also need Court adjudication to have the “beyond dispute” element removed (success not guaranteed) because normal reason has been abandoned.

    Under the “principle”, the sea level is in fact rising; it is “beyond dispute”.

    Excuse the waffle but very interested in an Australian reaction.

    Richard Cumming


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I don’t have the figures but as a former fisherman and fishmonger that relied on accurate tidal measurements in the NWest, high tides in Broome were at their highest in the past 25 years about 20 years ago (+9.7m). They are now 10cm or so lower during spring tides than over that same period. Lowest tides were a couple of years ago, about 10cm lower during spring tides (-0.7m). This probably could be attributed to lunar/earth orbital factors.
    Only cyclones have caused higher tides in the same period. The factory building is only about 10 cm above the highest spring tides, so any increase above this would have been noticeable with our 10 meter tides.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Tel at 8; sea level during the 1998 El Nino was not low everywhere; it’s like the bathtub sluice effect which can be seen in Figure 2 here:

    http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/denhelder.html

    So while the 1998 El Nino caused a sea level drop in the Pacific islands, sea level increased on the US West Coast:

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1999/fs175-99/

    Pressure, wind and thermohaline circulation variation seem to be the active agents.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Picking out “years with zero trend” is, well, cherry picking (except for Tuvalu, where all the available data was used). Now if the article is to be believed, the IPCC estimates of the rate of sea-level increase is dodgy because they chose 97/98 as their starting point. So both sides are cherry picking?

    Atmospheric pressure and ocean currents seem important factors in sea-level, and I wonder if any shift in weather patterns has changed the average atmospheric pressure over the ocean in this part of the world. Perhaps, like temperatures in mainland USA, sea levels to the immediate north east of Australia are a local rather than a global phenomena.

    Anyway, thanks Jo, a very interesting article.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve S

    - – - – - – - – — – - – - -
    janama:
    August 18th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
    Here’s a link Steve

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI3461.1?journalCode=clim

    - – - – — – - – - – - – - – - – - -

    Thanks janama but that link is just an abstract, not the full paper


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    For sea levels to rise as the IPCC claims, the oceans must warm first.

    In order to pin this on modern humans, it must be shown HOW GHG’s warm the oceans.

    Anyone care to take a stab at it? i.e. how does a warming atmosphere warm the oceans?

    p.s. If those stoooopid islanders wish to look after their islands, first they must stop catching 1000′s of parrot fish for western aquariums. That’ll stop the islands “sinking”.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    sea levels appear to be more or less constant since the Seaframe measurements began around 1993.

    John considering this post relates to an analysis of Seaframe how is this cherry picking?

    Perhaps, like temperatures in mainland USA, sea levels to the immediate north east of Australia are a local rather than a global phenomena.

    Why is it that when evidence does not support AGW it is a local phenomena yet recent local weather events, Russia,Pakistan are evidence of AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Are the Carteret Islanders still being evacuated to Bougainville? And is this because of catastrophic rising sea levels or attacking polar bears?

    Bruce, since the Carterets are near PNG and the sea doesn’t appear to be rising there, perhaps they are being inundated due to subsidence?

    And Tel, I understand that El Nino years involve a reduction in the prevailing winds – hence water “slops” back across the ocean as the winds slow down. It seems the latest El Nino wasn’t as strong as the one in 98. But I am not sure about the mechanism behind tropical cyclones causing a depression.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Neville: #4

    NZ has just brought in an ETS or similar nonsense and they only produce 0.1% of co2 emissions

    New Zealand has had a limited ETS since 2008 – but it only included forestry, so it only generated credits. These were promptly exported.

    Legislation for the full ETS was passed in November of last year, and it started to take effect on the first of July this year. It was supposed to dovetail into the Australian legislation.

    However, Australia have delayed their ETS legislation, for fear that it would not get past the Senate. This is the same problem that Obama has in the US.

    Australia is going to the polls this weekend, and one result might be an increase in the number of Green seats in the Senate. In which case, ETS legislation would have more chance of being introduced to Parliament in the near future.

    Similarly, Obama is working hard to increase the Democrat majority in the Senate so that he has a better chance of getting ETS legislation passed. If that happens, we will wait and watch, to see it there is a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court.

    But anyway, New Zealand has an ETS that is designed to work with an Australian ETS that has gone AWOL, so New Zealand now has the dubious honour of being the only mandatory, economy-wide scheme outside of Europe.

    But as Neville implies, nobody in the rest of the world is likely to notice.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “By looking closely at the records, it turns out that the much advertised rising sea levels in the South Pacific depend on anomalous depressions of the ocean during 1997 and 1998 thanks to an El Nino and two tropical cyclones.”

    Damn thats interesting. Does anyone have a good explanation or a reasonable hunch about this? A sudden depression hey? So is this analogous to a a change from latent thermal energy, to actual thermal energy? Like in the sense that a lot of the energy, which could express itself as higher temperature, expresses instead in terms of thermal expansion? And when things go the other way you get a depression and release of thermal energy?

    Its something to look at anyway these depressions, as small as they might seem on the surface. I suppose one has to go back and review some of Joannes other threads to do with El Nino, and then see if one can make some sort of sense of it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Oh right. I’ve just seen cohenites leads.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Baa Humbug: #14

    If those stoooopid islanders wish to look after their islands, first they must stop catching 1000’s of parrot fish for western aquariums. That’ll stop the islands “sinking”.

    I don’t quite follow. If they want to stop coral depletion (i.e. sinking), surely they need to catch more parrot fish, so less coral is eaten?

    Anyway, a colleague of mine (a marine biologist) has pointed out that most “tropical” pacific islands and atolls consist of a layer of sand and pulverised coral on top of a “solid” coral base. The sand gets there, carried by wave and tidal action.

    The base is constantly being refreshed by living coral (leaving the parrot fish aside for the moment, on account of them all being on holiday in western aquariums).

    So if sea levels rise, the coral would be able to grow higher, thus maintaining the relative height of the island or atoll above sea level. However, if sea levels fall, the coral near the surface dies, and the exposed skeletons get pulverised by the actions of sand and sea.

    His point, in all this, was that any rise in sea level would have to progress faster than the natural life cycle of the coral (which varies by species) for the dry land area to be impacted.

    An interesting point of view, I thought.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    The NZ court complaint is described here;

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/08/our-statement-of-claim-against-niwa/

    Points 1 & 4 would seem to have relevancy to certain Australian institutions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Rereke; Parrot fish turn coral into sand and as you get coral regrowth the end result is a net increase.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Jo,

    Tuvalu had it’s lowest sea-level record, in more than 10 years, last March, 8th.

    I also talked about TUvalu in the past at http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/12/tuvalu-is-rising.html
    Don’t forget that they are hiding the decline, in sea-level, too!

    Ecotretas


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    If the ABC was Relevant, Part 9

    Bryan: John Clarke, welcome to Australia.

    John: Thank you Bryan.

    Bryan: You attended the Copenhagen conference as a lobbyist for Tuvalu. What were your impressions?

    John: I prefer to be known as an advocate, hero and champion of the Tuvalu people thankyou Bryan.

    Bryan: So what part of Tuvalu do you come from?

    John: A little place called Queanbeyan, Bryan.

    Bryan: A tiny island of the Tuvalu group?

    John: A spiritual island, Bryan, geographically located near Canberra. On the Tuvalu side.

    Bryan: But you’re familiar with Tuvalu – having seen it of course.

    John: Lots of times Bryan. In the Pacific somewhere, [pulls out atlas], page 27 if I recall. Just…err… there. [Points to page.]

    Bryan: So, despite your geographic isolation, you still feel a tremendous affinity with the people of Tuvalu?

    John: An affinity that only money can buy Bryan.

    Bryan: So John, as Tuvalu’s advocate, hero and champion at Copenhagen, what were your impressions of the UN climate change conference?

    John: [Blubbering.] The people of Tuvalu were betrayed at Copenhagen Bryan! Shamelessly sold out by western capitalists, who heartlessly watch this island paradise sink beneath the waves!

    Bryan: Because of rising sea levels due to man-made global warming ?

    John: Yes Bryan. [Still blubbering]. The islands will drown, the culture will die and the
    babies will perish – all because of western nations and their carbon emissions! [Blows nose.]

    Bryan: So how can the western nations help?

    John: Tuvalu urgently needs a large wall of money to hold back the floodwaters Bryan! [Loudly - to off-stage.] Can someone change these out please? [Studio technician comes from stage left, removes 2 buckets of “tears’ and replaces them with 2 new buckets.]

    John: Where was I?

    Bryan: A wall of money.

    John: That’s right. [Starts blubbering again.] Tuvalu urgently needs a large wall of money to stem the rising tide of global warming Bryan!

    Bryan: How does one build a large wall of money?

    John: With large notes Bryan. Fifties and over – minimum. Cash, cheque and credit card available! Our operators are standing by…

    Bryan: [Sympathetically.] But what if the world ignores Tuvalu in its hour of need John?

    John: Then without urgent assistance, the once-proud people of Tuvalu will be up to their Niagaras in the Pacific Bryan.

    Bryan: Niagaras?

    John: Niagara Falls Bryan. A location just below the hips.

    Bryan: Mind if I get a second opinion?

    John: Go for it Bryan. Wikipedia?

    Bryan: Nice try. [Studio technician hands him SPPI Report – Bryan starts reading] Hmm…. hmm… hmmmmm. OK…Ah…Ah-ha….Really?

    John: What?

    Bryan: Does it surprise you, John, to discover that the sea level around the entire world, which includes Tuvalu, has risen by an average rate of nearly 200 millimetres per century for the last 8000 years?

    John: Impossible Bryan! We all know that mankind’s activities are causing rising sea levels! The IPCC said so – I’ll bet that report hasn’t been peer reviewed…

    Bryan: The IPCC also said the Himalayan glaciers had a use-by date of Tuesday. And no, the report hasn’t been reviewed by people who are paid to agree with it. But it does say that the islands of Tuvalu rise and fall with sea level.

    John: Islands don’t float Bryan! They’re rocky things with trees on top! No way!

    Bryan: Not in the normal sense, John, but when coral islands get too much higher than sea level, they are eroded by the wind. And when sea levels rise, they rise with it. That’s why these islands have been around for donkeys.

    John: Totally wrong Bryan! Totally wrong! If Tuvalu is a coral island, the only growth will happen below the water line!

    Bryan: But the upper section, technically known as the dry bit, is made up of sand. And do you know where that sand comes from?

    John: It’s just sand…

    Bryan: Ever heard of a parrot fish?

    John: Delicious Bryan! And dead easy to catch. All you do is grab a torch, walk out onto the reef at night and pick them up while they’re asleep. Used to get whole bags of the suckers a few years ago…

    Bryan: So the parrot fish is a popular Tuvalese delicacy?

    John: National cuisine Bryan!

    Bryan: Did you realise that the average parrot fish, through the simple process of feeding, converts about 100 kilograms of coral reef into sand per year?

    John: The Bastards – I never knew that! Destroying the reef!

    Bryan: Which promptly re-grows. But by that self-same process, the parrot fish generates about a 100 kilograms of Tuvalu beach to replace the sand that is blown away.

    John: That’s marvelous Bryan! So when do we get the money to buy more parrot fish?

    Bryan: Perhaps you could stop killing the ones you’ve already got? Try catching the other fish, maybe? The ones that aren’t parrot fish, for instance?

    John: Love to Bryan, but the other fish are tricky. They move.

    Bryan: Really…

    John: Tell you what. Why don’t you help the Tuvalese people to modify their behaviour by enticing them with large bags of money?

    Bryan: The noble savage. And if we don’t?

    John: It’ll be on your conscience Bryan.

    Bryan: That sea levels will suddenly continue to rise by 1.8 millimetres per year just like did for the previous 8000 years? Dearie me.

    John: [Desperately] There’s not a moment to lose! Urgent action is required now! Send your donations to this address! [Points to bottom of screen.]

    Bryan: That address again, John?

    John: It’s “Save Tuvalu Now”, PO Box 9994.

    Bryan: And the bottom line is?

    John: Queanbeyan, Australia.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DB

    Steve asked “Does anyone have a link to the Full Paper?”

    Here you are:

    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-90903-2010-JA.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Good post Jo, but how do we get this stuff in the popular press? We can’t even get ABC The Drum Unleashed blog site to publish our posts. Here was my last effort to get a post published at the ABC site – of course it didn’t see the light of day.

    “I have submitted three comments critical of Lewandowsky’s facts and logic, and a comment in response to ‘Damnthematrix’s’ list of record temperatures, and all have been censored and have failed to appear even in an edited form. I am trying again with one small point. Why hasn’t the ABC reported on the admission by NOAA that their satellite global temperature data has been faulty, in one case recording a surface temperature as high as 604 Deg F? Why has the ABC not reported the comments by leading climate scientists which call into question the validity of temperature records over the last 30 years and the research papers and IPCC reports upon which those temperature records were based? For details see: http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/TopClimateScientistsSpeakout.pdf

    I also sent Lewandowsky my critique of his article inviting him to tell me where I am wrong. No response from him. If climate alarmists are so sure that they are on the side of science, why are they so reluctant to engage in proper debate?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Jaymez@26: Maybe they won’t publish your comment because the satellite temperature “error” is a non-story. Its a beat-up.

    Mind you, if you look at the UAH satellite temperatures, surely they can’t really be as high as they seem! They have 2010 being way hotter than any previous year, and while its true that large chunks of the US, Asia and Russia have been very hot, one has to wonder if temperatures can really be as high as they say they are. You can plot their data yourself – go to http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/.

    Note that this is maintained by Roy Spencer – who is basically on your side, except that he does believe in the greenhouse effect. He just doesn’t believe that positive feedbacks will amplify any CO2 induced warming. Roy has dropped the faulty satellite data in 2006 (thanks for your link to the climaterealists post on this), and RSS must have as well, because if you go to the woodfortrees website, you will find that UAH and RSS satellite temperature records are in good agreement. Interestingly both of the satellite records are going up way faster than the hadcrut3gl data.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    More evidence that GW is NOT having the expected effect.

    So where is all the water going? The Warmists have shown warming (they say), they now universally talk about how most of the energy is in the oceans (that is why the surface temps. have not risen as predicted). This, if true, would cause the ocean water to expand and levels would HAVE to rise. Additionally, the Warmist continue to remind that the Arctic has melted which also should be causing a rise.

    So again I ask: Where is all that water?

    Or is what the Warmists say WRONG!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jason Calley

    The worst thing about a flat sea level graph is that even if you turn it upside down you still can’t use it to support warming.

    :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The graphs are interesting, and I wonder if some secular variations of the Moon’s orbit can be discerned amidst the data.

    Certainly, the differences in longitude of the effects of such things as the El Nino can be discerned in these.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    elsie

    Years ago in, say year 10 to 12, classes it was taught that land rose and fell in lots of places and at differing rates. I know the data above is more recent but it was well recognised that early attempts to record sea levels failed because of poor or impossible means of ensuring the position of the site didn’t rise or fall of its own accord. Thus, anything up to circa 1990 should be tossed out the window. Amazing to see islands that were easily accessed from the mainland at low tide centuries ago can still be reached the same way.

    Regarding the “science is settled” cliche. It was settled that the universe was heliocentric. Newton’s laws were final until Einstein bent them (excuse the pun.) His theories were upset by quantum physics which, although he helped develop them, hated them. This has led to such projects as the LHC in Europe. Hard core physics needing $billions and thousands of scientists to work on such projects would not be needed if such science was “settled”. NO science is ever settled.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Newton’s laws were final until Einstein bent them

    The theory of relativity removed certain assumptions about the physical world that could not be true if Galilean transformations were not covariant but transformations that left Maxwell’s equations were. That’s all it did.

    His theories were upset by quantum physics which, although he helped develop them, hated them.

    There’s nothing in relativity that was upset by “quantum physics” or anything else, any more than laws of conservation that apply to a “continuum” are “upset” by some atomistic theory of matter. Einstein pointed out certain (apparent) paradoxes in quantum interpretation, that as he believed at the time, could not be answered in the framework of quantum physics as it stood. It’s probably true that some of the paradoxes cannot be removed in any formalism of it.

    I don’t think he “hated” quantum physics because the paradoxes appeared


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Tel:
    August 18th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
    What I don’t get is why 1998 shows up as the hottest year in all the “global temperature” data (like GISS, etc) but it shows as an exceptionally low year for seal level on all these islands. If sea level correlates with temperature, shouldn’t 1998 be UP in all the graphs above?

    Mark D.:
    August 19th, 2010 at 1:31 am
    More evidence that GW is NOT having the expected effect.

    So where is all the water going?…..

    Remember what brought skylab down and the recent “collapse of the thermosphere” I think that the solar cycles expansion and contraction of the atmosphere would result in a change in global pressure at sea level. Now you can’t compress water but you can push it into rock. There is perhaps 5 times the volume of the oceans pressed into the mantle. Then even more in the inner earth.
    http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-8351.html
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/12/971217071316.htm
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0307_0307_waterworld.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    John @ 27. How do you call the satellite issue a non story , a beat up ? In case you did not read the link from Jaymez , it has been shown there are a several problem satelites not just the one satelite mentioned in the first report.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    That’s stretching things a bit more than credible, Sliggy.

    The obvious answer is, the volume contraction of water of water (at least above 4 deg.C) that is causing the apparent water “loss.”

    The Earth is still emerging from the LIA, and cycles of turnover of the ocean depths are of the order 800-1000 years. That almost certainly accounts for a lot of the apparent anomaly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Jaymez@26: Your frustration at not being able to get these reports into the MSM reminds me of a comment at WUWT on the same situation when Climategate was breaking – “The only thing that stands between us and totalitarianism is the internet”.

    It is the “principle” in action (see 9 above).

    Perhaps you should modify the tone of your protest. Witness this attempt at channeling Churchill by Prof. Kieth Hunter in response to the NZCSCET v. NIWA case:

    “Hunter’s extraordinary peroration” http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/08/hunters-extraordinary-peroration/

    That,s how silly it is in NZ. Beat that Australia.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Siliggy, You are always a source of something new to ponder!

    My gut reaction (pretty scientific huh) is that even if water were dissolved into rock (or any other subterranean substance) the pressure causing this would be as stable as the our gravity. I also doubt that a few millibars of atmospheric variation would have much effect since the pressures at depth are already astronomical.

    Now if you have ideas that steric sea level rise is impossible I’d like to hear about it. In the mean time the whole concept of sea level is one of the only things I believe we might measure with any hope of accuracy. (as opposed to global atmospheric temperature) A lack of ocean level rise easily and simply proves that CAGW, AGW and GW is not happening!

    Or else a warmist should tell me where all the GW caused ocean expansion is hiding?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Brian G Valentine:
    August 19th, 2010 at 6:44 am
    The obvious answer is, the volume contraction of water of water (at least above 4 deg.C) that is causing the apparent water “loss.”

    Ocean salt water does not have the same thermal expansion coefficient as freshwater. Correct me if i am wrong but I think it does not reach a minimum before freezing at that salinity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Jo at #16 – Hey I know it, the problem is ultimately the Carteret’s fresh water supply. Sinking islands and increased sea water ingression due to extraction.

    The point is the Carteret issue was championed by CAGW fans as the ‘first environmental refugees due to global warming’.

    Your data pokes a few holes in that idea, which is why I posted. Still it could be the polar bears.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    I’ve read Rick’s comment @ 1 several times because I think it is so true, especially the last sentence. I cannot understand why “mainstream” enviromentalists don’t see the negative effects.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    William

    To Richard C (36),
    I agree with your comment 1000%!!
    “The only thing that stands between us and totalitarianism is the internet”.

    The federal election in Australia is a CROSSROADS.
    A choice between COMMUNISM or a path back to SANITY.

    If Labor/Greens win then this is what will happen regarding Internet Censorship……

    http://apcmag.com/govt-may-record-users-web-history-email-data.htm

    Welcome to George Orwell’s 1984 if that happens!

    You may as well rename Australia to the United Socialist States Of Australia (USSA)!

    GOD HELP US!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Well that’s a good point Sliggy the max in density of sea water occurs at the fp of sea water of some -1.8 deg.C.

    Ice that appears at the surface of sea water of course is less concentrated in salt than the sea water itself (typically), because of the adverse diffusion gradient of salt to the ice arising from water ice crystal formation. Year to year this makes new ice easier to form at the surface because the surface layers formed from melted ice are less concentrated in salt, but over the long term, the colder waters of the ocean depths are replacing the surface waters. These are more dense than the surface waters they replace and evidently over the long term, the volume of water of the ocean doesn’t expand as expected


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Mark D.:
    August 19th, 2010 at 7:39 am
    “…the pressure causing this would be as stable as the our gravity.”

    Give or take momentum.
    Picture this: A slow AGW type change will have no momentum effect. A rapid upward (or outward thinking spherically)movement due to solar induced expansion would cause a pressure increase as it expands because of the outward movement making the expansion lopsided( Air moving away from planet). This pressure would return to normal as the expansion stops then become a reduction in pressure as the contraction occurs. Again it would return to normal as the contraction stops.
    Take another look at the sea level charts above. The 1998 levels seem to go down just BEFORE the temps peak here:
    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt


    Report this

    00

  • #
    elsie

    Brian G Valentine,
    But the two theories of relativity did indeed have a huge impact upon Newton’s laws as being seen as immutable. For example, the mystery of the orbit for Mercury was never solved by Newton’s laws, but only by applying relativity. Einstein did initiate quantum physics with his discovery that light consists of photons as well as being a wave. It was for this that he received the Nobel Prize later in life. We also should give most credit to Plank, Heisenberg and Neils Bohr for taking quantum theory so far. Sure, using the word ‘hate’ was over the top. But despite the evidence Einstein found quantum theories hard to believe and described it as “God playing dice with the universe.” This, he found intolerable and believed a unified field theory would tie the issue up. As he himself said,
    ” I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.” (Albert Einstein, 1954)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    William@41

    The Lambeck Principle and Totalitarianism implemented in Fiji.

    Excerpt from FijiDave comment 458771, WUWT, NIWA sued post:

    “BTW, happily I am able to access this site via one of the ISP’s that don’t block it here in Fiji. WUWT is considered by some (not the Government) to be a “threat” and is on the “blacklist of the company”.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/new-zealands-niwa-sued-over-climate-data-adjustments/#comment-458771


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve S

    - – - – - – - -
    DB:
    August 18th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
    Steve asked “Does anyone have a link to the Full Paper?”

    Here you are:

    http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-90903-2010-JA.pdf

    - – - – - – - -

    Thanks DB for that link


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    True the advance of perihelion of the orbit of Mercury of some 43 seconds of arc per century was only partly accounted for by the secular variations mostly of Venus and only accounted for by relativity. There remain secular variations in the eccentricity of Mercury’s orbit unaccounted for by anything, that’s another matter.

    Einstein’s theory modified the Newtonian field so that the components of a gravitational potential of free space would account for apparent mass increase and time dilation. Those are consequences of a constant light speed.

    It so happens that Mercury’s orbit is close enough to the Sun (Mercury’s angular speed sufficiently high) and the orbit eccentric enough so that the effect of time dilation can be perceived (as a secular variation on the orbit).

    Anyway his “paradoxes” such as the Einstein Poldowsky Rosen paradox go away – when probabilities are interpreted correctly. All physics involve measurements, and all measurements involve probabilities, it just so happens these probabilities are handled a Little differently in the sub-atomic world. I don’t think Einstein believed the existence of a Planck quantum of action contradicted a thing.

    I’m gettin way off the reservation here


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Cooke

    Good mythbusting article, and it’s high time this furphy about disappearing islands was laid to rest.

    Even if there was any long-term increase in sea level relative to the ocean floor, we’d expect it to be balanced by growth of coral and the subsequent production of more sand and soil by weathering and ecosystem processes on the islands. “Ever since Darwin”, it’s been known that this is how coral islands adjust to subsidence or sea level changes on the timescales that these changes actually occur.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    CJames

    The current sea level rise is an indication of a warming ocean, it expands as it gets warmer.

    If you look at global figures, rather than a few cherry picked stations, then you find a long term warming.

    http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm#Global%20sea%20level

    This indicates warming, but the sea level rise pacific islanders need to be worried about is from the future melting of land based ice.

    This could result in a sea level rise of more than a metre by the end of this century.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    You’re going to find SOME WAY to sound an alarm, aren’t you, C James, because you can’t seem to let an opportunity to do so go to waste.

    If you only used your imagination to construct a bit more realistic “disaster” scenarios of runaway government responding to nonexistent threats, you might (however inadvertently) help someone.

    As it is, you’re helping none.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
    John

    Obviously Al Gore is not concerned about these supposed sea level rises!!

    WHAT A HYPOCRITE HE IS!

    Gore bets the seas won’t drown his new ocean-view home:-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gore_bets_the_seas_wont_drown_his_new_ocean_view_home/


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Rereke Whaakaro: #20
    August 18th, 2010 at 9:22 pm

    I don’t quite follow. If they want to stop coral depletion (i.e. sinking), surely they need to catch more parrot fish, so less coral is eaten?

    No, the parrot fish are vital to keeping the reef refreshed. Parrot fish actually help stimulate coral growth. They are, after all, part of the reef ecosystem.

    The rest of your discussion about coral islands is fundamentally correct. Another way the islands are threatened is the dynamiting of the reefs in order to make concrete.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    francis

    JULIA GILLARD PROMISES TO REINTRODUCE THE ETS (ie Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme)!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/24/2936070.htm

    Note that the new PM is promising to bring the ETS back onto the table:

    “She also indicated she would revive the Government’s climate change policy after the Government’s decision to shelve its emissions trading scheme was seen as a major contributor to the dive in Mr Rudd’s popularity.”

    Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009…….

    Everybody should read the section regarding “Monitoring powers”!!

    This should be enough to send chills up and down your spine if you value FREEDOM!!

    This ETS(Employment Termination Scheme/Extra Tax System)/carbon tax/CPRS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE INTRODUCED INTO AUSTRALIA!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    CJames, I suppose that you have an explanation why your link shows nearly 50mm rise during the same time period that these “cherry picked” sites show virtually NONE?

    I should think that land based measurements are more accurate than satellite derived as they do not need nearly as much “correction” http://sealevel.colorado.edu/documents.php At any rate, I don’t think you can write off the fact that these sites are not picking up a trend of rise and that should cause some discomfort.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Richard C

    Francis@57

    I was rereading that article when your comment came in – gazumped!

    Excerpt
    “One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC’s favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a “corrective factor” of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they “needed to show a trend”.’


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Theory of relativity seems so mysterious, so arcane until one goes through the calculation, say for the advance of Mercury’s orbital perihelion. Once one does it, all the mystery is removed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Macha

    #58. ETS and CPRS… I know the labels are misleading in relation to links with CO2, but could this really be a subtle strategy shift for governments to ‘find’ more funds/cash? It really could be called an ENERGY’ tax.?! This would mean an alternative from Mr/Mrs Citizen being the revenue source. After all, its obvious that big business has the cash and with aging populations, scare campaigns on immigration, where can the money come from within a growth focused/anti-depreciation based society?

    Maybe an “Enegry tax”, as I call it can work, assuming one of the major roles of ANY government is to re-distrubute cash from those that have it, to those without it.

    BTW I am not a CAGW or ETS cap’n'trade fan.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    CJames

    Mark D, sea level rise is not the same for all parts of the world. Having different levels in different places is not surprising. That’s why having a global measurement is important.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    John #27, not sure if you wrote tongue in cheek. You could hardly describe the NOAA satellite errors as a ‘Beat Up’. These satellites are supposed to be providing the most accurate temperature and other atmospheric records available to us. Scientists have based research and conclusions on the data produced. The IPCC reports and government policies are influenced by the data. At first NOAA tried to claim there was no problem, now we know at least 5 satellites have problems. We also know that NOAA have known about the problems for years, but did not say or do anything. NOAA have not audited the impact of the errors on the temperature records they have been providing to government and non-government bodies.

    Richard C # 36. I understand your point regarding ‘tone’. Though ‘tone’ might attract some editing, it shouldn’t attract complete censorship. However, the ‘tone’ in that last effort to get published only developed after having 4 previous posts totally censored. I assure you, there was no negative tone, unless stating Lewandowsky was wrong in fact and logic, is a nasty tone?

    The fact is, the ABC soldiers are deciding what they want their readers to access. If it is information which shows how weak the AGW position is, it doesn’t get published. But if it’s a fairy story about Siamese twins and fun cars, it gets published.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Yes that is right, this is what Dr. Nils-Axel Morner has been saying for years. He has actually been visiting these locations, and has decried the computer modellers who have been reporting otherwise from their armchairs.

    In a 30 minute, three part interview Dr. Morner explains.
    see the URL:
    http://fraudulentclimate.atspace.com/videopage2.html#mornersealevels

    See many more relevant videos at that website. See live coverage of Australian Elections on a special page which will be available for the duration. Reach the special Aussie page from the Main Index page.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    IrenaJ

    THE LEFTIST MARXIST ALP PROPAGANDA GROUP “GetUp” HIDES LABOR’S BROKEN PROMISES!!!

    WHAT A SURPRISE!!

    THESE MONGREL BASTARDS ARE TRAITORS TO THEIR FELLOW AUSTRALIANS!!

    NOTHING BUT A SUPPORT GROUP FOR THE COMMUNIST LABOR PARTY!

    http://www.youtube.com/v/5Pg0RgfFYeg?fs=1&hl=en_US

    Months ago GetUp! promised to update its list of Labor promises broken. Must have been hard work, because just when we’re asked to judge Labor’s performance before casting our vote, this Labor front still begs for more time:

    This site list of promises made by Kevin Rudd during the 07 election campaign.

    But right now our team is working at updating the content.

    We’ll have the content back online asap.

    What’s more, the list of Labor’s promises has been taken down, so you can’t check them for yourself.

    ============================================

    HERE IS A LIST OF “SOME” OF THEM TO HELP THEM OUT!

    Find below Kevin’s/Labor’s Report card for 2008, 2009 and 2010.

    Mark of F +++

    • Save the whales – FAIL+

    • Fuelwatch, $21M – FAIL+

    • Kids Laptops – FAIL+

    • National Broadband Network ($4b-$7B-$43B): To cost about $20,000 a connection – FAIL+

    • Grocery Watch/Choice – dumped $13 million vow – FAIL+

    • Federal takeover of hospitals by mid 2009 if no improvement. – EPIC FAIL+

    • Hospital Reform – just take the money from the States – FAIL+

    • Schools Stimulus Infrastructure Program (BEBR – Builders Early Retirement Fund) – FAIL+

    • Bribe to Free To Air TV Stations – FAIL+

    • Refugees: how many boats so far? – FAIL+

    • Refugees suspension backflip – FAIL+

    • 2020 Summit – 1000 B&B; minds, $2+m = 9 usable ideas – EPIC FAIL+

    • Batts in , Batts out – SUPER DUPER EPIC FAIL+

    • Kill off Insulation Industry – FAIL+

    • Upcoming Huge Budget Deficit – FAIL+

    • Mining Tax – FAIL+

    • Childcare Centre Building program scrapped – FAIL+

    • Carbon emissions reduction – LPG conversion subsidies phased out – FAIL+

    • Carbon emissions reduction (2): household solar rebate axed 9/6 – FAIL+

    • ETS – Greatest Moral Challenge of our Time – FAIL+

    Mark of F

    • Fight inflation genie – Oops GFC – FAIL

    • Taxes up (gas, diesel,transport, alcopops) – inflationary – FAIL

    • Arresting Iranian leaders: stunt – FAIL

    • Bank guarantee – over 200,000 accounts frozen from September 2008. – FAIL

    • Cash Splash 1 –borrowed – FAIL

    • Cash Splash 2: borrowed $42B – FAIL

    • Work Choices/fair work: awards backflips – tourism/food industry dispensation but farmers will be out of work. – FAIL

    • Defence: cut expenditure & build weaponry? – FAIL

    • Homeland Security Department – “non-core promise” broken Nov 28, 2007 – FAIL

    • The buck stops with me – so where are you? – FAIL

    • Tough Decisions – Ahh never – FAIL

    • Securing Murray/Darling water – FAIL

    • IVF: cuts. – FAIL

    • Medicare/private health: rebate same/lie – FAIL

    • Dental scheme: gone 22.Cataract surgery: costs doubled – FAIL

    • Superannuation: government needs it more than us. – FAIL

    • Home Savers Grant: fizzer, lack of people saving – FAIL

    • First Home Owners grant: lifted, inflating house prices – FAIL

    • GP super clinics – $275M. – FAIL

    • Non-compulsory university union fees: voted down – FAIL

    • Worker share options – blunder – FAIL

    • Ruddbank – FAIL

    • Reduce consultancies by $112 million = increase to $800 million (6354 consultancies) – FAIL

    • Govt will pay small business invoices on time = takes a lot longer – FAIL

    • No nuclear Waste Dump NT – election promise – broken June 2008 – FAIL

    • $15 million to rural research & development corporations – election promise – broken May 2008. – FAIL

    • A – E reporting on childcare standards & universal pre-school for 4 year olds – election promise – broken June 2009 – FAIL

    • ALP Uranium Policy/stance – in tatters. Garrett approves uranium mine. – FAIL

    • Diplomacy – Japan – biggest customer – FAIL. India – Uranium contract – FAIL .

    • USA – conversations (real/imaginary) released to media. – FAIL

    • China, May 2009 – “difficult to deal with” Australia led Asia Pacific Body – thud. – FAIL

    • Boost funding for aboriginal Legal Aid – lie – actuality = cuts to funding in first budget. – FAIL

    • Scale back Intervention – ignored review recommendations. – FAIL

    • Homes /renovations for indigenous – not one shovel lifted to date – FAIL

    • Digital TV –Conroy, 2008, slash $22m from costs of changeover, original estimate $16m now to cost $66m – FAIL

    • Cheaper Better Childcare – Govt regulations will see Childcare costs going up by about $1500pa on July 1, 2010 – FAIL

    • Internet Filter – FAIL

    • Funding Equivalent Hospital Beds – Sorry Kev, can’t sleep in those equivalent Beds – FAIL


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Jaymez@65

    Sorry, I was being facetious. I was alluding to the fact that the darkside can screech and throw tantrums and get published but polite dissent as you describe gets blocked.

    There’s been a couple of examples in NZ recently that brings out the cynic.

    This journalistic excellence from NZ Herald:
    “The flat-earthers from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition are off to the High Court….”

    “As devout deniers of man-made global warming, the coalition claims….”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10666806

    The other was Prof Hunter’s brain explosion (not published)

    “Maybe finally the mainstream scientists of this country are waking up to what the NZ*C*S*C is trying to do. Let there be no doubt – this is another attack on integrity [sic] of the science system. We defeated this when the Nazis did it, we defeated it when the Soviets did it, and we will continue to defeat it! And in case you think it [sic], let me remind you – all it takes for scientific untruths to survive is for honest men and women to ignore them.”

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/08/hunters-extraordinary-peroration/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    why is this published as is? how many of these searches were by people following Climategate, e.g.? why did the herald-sun even publish it? no other MSM has so far carried it, tho ABC will probably jump on it asap:

    19 Aug: Herald-Sun: AAP: Climate change ‘top online topic’
    The research tracked online searches by Australians on political issues between May 8 and August 14 this year.
    Climate change came out on top, with 0.00077 per cent of all Australian internet searches over the period…
    The research was conducted by information services company Experian and sampled the searches of three million Australian internet users…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/climate-change-top-online-topic/story-e6frf7jx-1225907080918


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    even more crazy is this lengthy piece of nonsense:

    19 Aug: UK Independent: On the frontline of climate change
    It’s the burning issue Australia’s leaders dare not confront, even on the eve of a general election
    By Kathy Marks
    At one school, children have reportedly been stealing packed lunches from classmates. “That’s how bad things have got, and I know people in those circumstances,” says Jim Belehris, an almond grower….
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/on-the-frontline-of-climate-change-2056322.html

    obviously kathy is a pro:

    1 Feb 2009: UK Independent: Parched: Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in
    Geoffrey Lean and Kathy Marks report on the worst heatwave in the country’s history
    More than 20 people have died from the heat, mainly in Adelaide. Trees in Melbourne’s parks are dropping leaves to survive, and residents at one of the city’s nursing homes have started putting their clothes in the freezer…
    As Professor David Karoly, of the University of Melbourne, said last week: “The heat is unusual, but it will become much more like the normal experience in 10 to 20 years.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/parched-australia-faces-collapse-as-climate-change-kicks-in-1522529.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Brian@47: “Einstein Poldowsky Rosen paradox go away”; that is sad news; entanglement promised instantaneous long distance communication, quantum computers and superposition FTL travel; I suppose you’ll be telling that there is no such thing as negative energy now! You may be interested or even know of Anton Zeilinger’s 1999 experiment which showed that a 60 carbon atom buckyball can superposition but only in isolation otherwise it would decohere; I believe he is going to repeat the experiment with a cat.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Meanwhile… another trip to Barcelona and back completed and those stubborn windmills still refuse to move. Kinda like sea levels in the Pacific.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    elsie

    Brian G Valentine, I know it seems we have gone well off topic, but my initial point was that no scientist or scientific group can be so stupid as to claim science is settled even in their own specialist area. I forget who it was but around 1900 at a science gathering someone pompously proclaimed that there was no more major science discoveries to he made except for a few more accurate measurements. This was when it was thought the sun was a ball of burning coal, atoms were poorly understood and the idea of galaxies yet to revealed. When Darwin saw the different finches with differing beaks on the Galapagos Islands he went on to develop the theory of evolution. (That’s not the whole story, but you know what I mean.) Today, we have ecologists popping up everywhere demanding and having different species declared endangered, etc. But the finches on the Galapagos Islands were just finches. Pure and simple. Each island contained the one species but with a slight adaptation. Today, too many animals of the same species, but with some different adaptation, are being named as separate species. So in many cases it does not matter if a so called species goes extinct because it probably is just an adaptation of common species found in abundance elsewhere. The Greens and environmentalists will just have to be more scientific about their judgement calls. Such calls can be unnecessary and oppressive to humans living their lives.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “The Science Is Settled”

    You see I would say that the statement contains a contradiction. Or at least loosely so. Because the essence of science is PROCESS. Methodology and process.

    Substituting we see that the statement becomes”

    “The Process And Methodology Has Settled”

    Which is pretty confusing. The process and method can never settle down. But on the other hand the science is settled when it comes to CO2. CO2 is such a feeble warmer (cooler) we cannot find the evidence for these well-known allegations.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “Theory of relativity seems so mysterious, so arcane until one goes through the calculation, say for the advance of Mercury’s orbital perihelion. Once one does it, all the mystery is removed.”

    Its a crap theory Valentine. As theories goes its the pits. Special relativity is held up primarily by the cult of personality and relentless lying.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    OK I’ll take your word it’s a crap theory – when you back that up and show me what it is supposed to be replaced with.

    1. What transformation do you want to use to put Galilean transformations on the same footing as Maxwell’s equations. Nobody said Lorentz transformations are the only possible answer – but if you don’t like those, you need to show me which ones take their place. (Discussion over if you tell me you don’t like Maxwell’s equations, either.)

    2. The components of the contracted (second-order) Riemann curvature tensor of empty space time, equal SOMETHING. You don’t like relativity means you don’t like the answer, “zero.” If they aren’t zero, tell me what they are.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Or else a warmist should tell me where all the GW caused ocean expansion is hiding?

    Mark D. @37,

    Remember the crazy woman on the House Select Committee on Environment and Climate Change who told Monkton that according to a gauge under the Golden Gate Bridge, sea level had risen 8 inches since that gauge was put in. So I guess it’s hiding under the Golden Gate Bridge. Or maybe whatever she was smoking is hiding there.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I agree with you 100% Elsie – the “species extinction” nonsense is just a means to demonstrate SOMETHING is “wrong” – however dubious the claim.

    I don’t know if this is the result of “modern existentialism,” or what it is from. People CANNOT and WILL NOT be content with hearing, “everything is OK.”

    The existence of humans and plastics and electric power and cars and paved roads and shopping malls MUST be causing SOMETHING awful to happen – but what is it?

    Global warming. That’s a tough sell. Maybe too tough for some people.

    “Species extinction.” Another idea in the same category.

    Academic departments of universities need SOMETHING to justify their existence. Usually, it’s to provide evidence that supports a general feeling of malaise people have about the world


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Brian G Valentine:
    August 19th, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    1. What transformation do you want to use to put Galilean transformations on the same footing as Maxwell’s equations. Nobody said Lorentz transformations are the only possible answer – but if you don’t like those, you need to show me which ones take their place. (Discussion over if you tell me you don’t like Maxwell’s equations, either.)

    Not sure how this subject made it in here, but you might find this interesting:

    Heinrich Hertz addressed what he saw as the problem that Maxwell’s equations weren’t Galilean invariant (invariant under an inertial transformation to a differently moving coordinate system) in his book “Electric Waves” (Teubner, Leipzig, 1892; Dover, New York, 1962) by simply replacing the partial time derivatives of the field quantities with total time derivatives (varying with spatial position as well as time).

    This, astoundingly, makes Maxwell’s equations invariant under Galilean transformations, but introduces a mysterious velocity when transformed to differently-moving coordinates. Hertz hypothesized that this was the velocity w.r.t. the “luminiferous ether” and set about trying to measure it in the laboratory, which he failed to do. Hertz’s premature death signalled the end of this line of enquiry.

    More recently, there has been some follow-up on Hertz’s observations. The most elaborate is by Navy physicist Thomas Phipps, in his interesting and wide-ranging book, “Heretical Verities: Mathematical Themes in Physical Description” (classic non-fiction library, Urbana; 1986). (He has some journal papers, also, which you can probably find by googleing him.)

    Phipps introduces the operational definition of a “field” as “what is measured by a field meter”, and assigns the emergent velocity as the velocity of the field meter you are using to assign values to the fields. Phipps shows that this definition makes Hertz’s modification to Maxwell’s equations completely invariant and consistent over Galilean transformation, deduces a number of potentially measurable consequences, and designs and carries out a number of experiments to observe them. Some of these consequences (such as the non-existence of Thomas rotation) are verified — others remain elusive.

    It’s understandable that there is so little support for the re-examination of “settled” theories, as many current theoretical works rest on them and are threatened by any modifications. This attitude surely lies behind some of the rigidity of climate scientists to any questioning of the basic tenets they assume.

    At any rate, Phipps’ work is wide-ranging and well worth a read.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    BobC: @ 79 asks:

    Not sure how this subject made it in here…

    Graeme and Brian are just taking a Random Walk


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I think you’ll find that a Hertz decomposition of a “time derivative” (or anything equivalent to it) introduces a (non-null) first order correction at least in v/c to the Michelson-Morely null result.

    Show me how that can be made to vanish at least to observation and I’ll put some faith in it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    I cannot resist! Here is a humorous comment that I recall from many years ago: As best I remember our Operations Officer ended a long-range aerial recon mission briefing early in 1955, from Guam, with, “Be careful, we have an excess of water out there.”

    Does that sum-up our entire ‘problem’ with the oceans or not?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Brian G Valentine:
    August 20th, 2010 at 1:11 am

    I think you’ll find that a Hertz decomposition of a “time derivative” (or anything equivalent to it) introduces a (non-null) first order correction at least in v/c to the Michelson-Morely null result.

    Show me how that can be made to vanish at least to observation and I’ll put some faith in it.

    Phipps concludes that light travels at c w.r.t. the absorber, so MM experiment remains null.

    This forum is not the place for a long derivation, but Phipp’s book is still available on Amazon (here) (Strangely, new ones cost less than used.)

    It’s not a one-dimensional book — lots of interesting stuff in it, and Phipps has done some neat experiments, not all of which have made it into the literature.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The problems with introducing an additive property into the speed of light give me a headache that I can’t deal with, when I contemplate all the consequences that go along with it (such as modifying the rest energy mc**2) – whether that additive property is assigned to an “aether” or to a physical thing.

    This demonstrates to me how resistant I am to changing a belief or understanding I have had since I was a child.

    I read Eddington’s semi-popular Space, time, gravitation at 11, Weyl’s Space, time, matter at 16 – I have carried with me (to this day) the impression that Einstein’s and Minkowski’s derivation of “special” relativity, was all there could be. Who knows, maybe I’m wrong along with all of them.

    More related to the subject of this web site, I was told at 15 that Arrhenius was completely wrong about any idea he had related to “CO2 warming the atmosphere.” That wasn’t a common subject when I was 15 – and I never gave any thought to the idea that I would ever hear about it again. I was dead wrong about that, anyway.

    So I hold two ideas in my head and indeed many more that I am very reluctant to modify in the slightest.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Rereke Whaakaro:
    August 18th, 2010 at 8:52 pm

    Similarly, Obama is working hard to increase the Democrat majority in the Senate so that he has a better chance of getting ETS legislation passed. If that happens, we will wait and watch, to see it there is a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court.
    ______
    Obama? Working? Hard? “increase Democrat majority in the Senate”?

    What are you SMOKING, dude?

    Obama is ineffectually scrambling to mitigate the coming slaughter of Dems both in Senate and House. He will fail.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Democrat candidates treat President Obama as if he was radioactive.

    This has become so bad that I sincerely feel bad for him.

    I was surprised that he was convinced to go along with the “Al Gore/Enviro-mental” bunch.

    The concept is elitist as all hell (to me anyway), enviro-mentals cringe when they hear that charge levelled at them but they know it’s true


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C

    Re 9 above.

    Turns out that Kurt Lambecks “beyond dispute” is a borrowed phrase.

    “Few challenges facing America and the world are
    more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond
    dispute and the facts are clear.”
    – President-elect Barack Obama, 19 Nov 08


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Richard C

    The Pacific is moving to a cool phase; explaining cooler North American eastern seaboard temps and cold South America.

    Unisys – Current Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Plot

    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Richard C

    Sorry, re 90. More up-to-date review here:

    Still Cooling: Sea Surface Temperatures thru August 18, 2010

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/still-cooling-sea-surface-temperatures-thru-august-18-2010/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    “Few challenges facing America and the world are
    more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond
    dispute and the facts are clear.”
    – President-elect Barack Obama, 19 Nov 08

    Indeed the facts are clear! But he doesn’t have them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Roy;
    And wouldn’t know what to do with them if he did! Other than his usual obfuscification. >;(


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Owen

    And the Topex/Jason Satellite altimetry data? It’s all wrong too, right?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Argh I knew it, I knew it (re #7), they would never leave such a useful myth unused!

    New York Times yesterday: If a Country Sinks Beneath the Sea, Is It Still a Country?

    “Rising ocean levels brought about by climate change have created a flood of unprecedented legal questions for small island nations and their neighbors.”

    “The Carteret Islanders of Papua New Guinea could be some of the world’s first climate “refugees.”"

    “”The prospect of a nation drowning is so horrific that it’s hard to imagine,” Gerrard said. Moreover, he added, until just a few years ago, it was difficult to have a conversation in the international community about how countries might adapt to climate change.”

    Fortunately as well as Jo, we have Tom Nelson:
    Flashback: Papua New Guinea: If this is really CO2-induced apocalypse, why are the people “fleeing” so very very slowly?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Brian H

    Jo, you have a real un-fan slandering you here:
    http://climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful#comment-8849

    Sounds like you’ve crossed swords before, from his comments. He figgers you for a despicable denialist liar, it seems! 8\


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    #95;
    It shows a trend of 1′ rise per century. What about it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rob Moore

    Jo- thanks for some real data to combat this air-headed trash that eminates from the “Qld Climate Change Centre of Excellance” headed by our Premier’s “partner” -Greg Withers.(Dept budget $198M last Fin Year) This is hot off the press-

    Sea-level rise predictions to increase
    At the Climate Adaptation Futures Conference in July, Dr Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Vice-Chairman
    of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said that the IPCC will “almost inevitably”
    make a large increase in predictions of world sea-level rises in its Fifth Assessment Report, due for
    release in 2014
    Research published after the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report largely suggests that global sealevel
    rise will be greater than the projected 0.8 metres by 2100 stated in the report. This figure
    includes a 0.2 metre component from ice melt.
    The need for communities to adapt to rising sea levels was expressed by CSIRO researchers. Dr
    Russell Gorddard, Nick Abel and Anthony Ryan called for planned retreat as an alternative to sea
    walls in a paper delivered at the conference. They stated that a forecast 1.1 metre rise in sea levels
    by the year 2100 will put at risk more than $60 billion in homes around Australia’s coastline, including
    about 9000 in south east Queensland.
    For further information on the conference, visit http://www.nccarf.edu.au/conference2010


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    At the Climate Adaptation Futures Conference in July, Dr Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Vice-Chairman
    of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said that the IPCC will “almost inevitably”
    make a large increase in predictions of world sea-level rises in its Fifth Assessment Report, due for
    release in 2014

    And just as inevitably be wrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    to Brian G Valentine: @84:

    I read Eddington’s semi-popular Space, time, gravitation at 11, Weyl’s Space, time, matter at 16 – I have carried with me (to this day) the impression that Einstein’s and Minkowski’s derivation of “special” relativity, was all there could be.

    I note that Eddington promoted numerology also.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] cyclones and El Niños) were removed, sea levels were more or less constant”. For details see Jo Nova and An Honest Climate [...]


    Report this

    00