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

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



Australian sea levels have been falling for 7000 years

It’s hard to measure sea levels, because land often moves up and down too (which is known as “isostatic“). But Australia is stable tectonically, so the Australian sea-level record is more useful than most. It preserves the holocene era and the rises and falls, and correspond more with glacio-eustatic (ice equivalent) sea-level changes, rather than changes in land masses.

During the coldest days of the last ice age (known as a glacial maximum) 20,000 years ago, the oceans were 125m lower than today. They peaked at around 1 -2 meters higher than present between 9000 and 5000 years ago, and have been trending down ever since. Our current rate of 30cm/century (if that continues) hardly seems unprecedented or highly unusual. And 10% of that is apparently due to an isostatic “adjustment”. Worse, if you look at the raw data, the rate is closer to zero. Hmm. Lucky we have all those adjustments eh?

If Australian sea levels keep falling at this rate, we might really need to save That Reef.

Clearly there are many details yet to be worked out about sea-levels.

That phenomenal rise out of the ice age:

 

WA and NSW coastlines are considered the most stable

“Bryant (1992) reviewed the variable sea-level highstands of the last interglacial (based on the analysis of Murray-Wallace and Belperio, 1991) and mid-Holocene around Australia and found that there was possible downwarping of northern Australia and up warping along the southern edge of the continent (including Tasmania). Most of the east coast of New South Wales and west coast of Western Australia were classed as relatively stable.

Although most parts of the Australian continent reveals a high degree of tectonic stability, research conducted since the 1970s has shown that the timing and elevation of a Holocene highstand varies systematically around its margin.This is attributed primarily to variations in the timing of the  response of the ocean basins and shallow continental shelves to the increased ocean volumes  following ice-melt, including a process known as ocean siphoning (i.e. glacio-hydro-isostatic adjustment processes).”

 

The holocene period in NSW

 

A steady decline in sea levels in WA for 7000 years

 

The last 8000 years in Queensland

 

The reviewers call for empirical evidence of the past, so we can predict the future.

” Conclusions
Fairbridge’s pioneering research led, not to a global eustatic curve as he had anticipated, but to the recognition that the pattern of relative sea-level change in the Australian region differed from that observed in the Atlantic. A series of seminal sea-level studies were undertaken in the following 25 years. The stabilisation of sea level close to its present elevation in the mid- Holocene set the scene for the detailed reconstructions that were undertaken at different locations around the Australian  mainland.

A clearer understanding of past sea-level changes and their causes is urgently needed to better inform our ability to forecast future changes. A concerted effort is required, through the compilation of existing data, renewed fieldwork, dating analysis and modelling to address the issues of whether there have been oscillations of the sea surface and if so, of what magnitude.”

 

h/t The Hockey Schtick

REFERENCE:

Lewis, S.E., et al., Post-glacial sea-level changes around the Australian margin: a review, Quaternary Science
Reviews (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.09.006 [abstract] (paywalled).

Other posts on sea levels

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.8/10 (47 votes cast)
Australian sea levels have been falling for 7000 years, 8.8 out of 10 based on 47 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/9ndpya4

141 comments to Australian sea levels have been falling for 7000 years

  • #
    Bloke down the pub

    In the UK, whenever sea level rise is discussed in the context of global warming, the East coast of England is the usual example given by the warmists. It provides dramatic pictures of the steep soft cliffs being eroded and crumbling into the sea. The majority of sea level change in this region is in fact due to isostatic rebound, the result of millions of tons of ice being lost from the North of the UK at the end of the ice age. As the North bounces back up, so the South sinks. In Scotland, relative sea level is dropping.


    Report this

    160

  • #
    MadJak

    Interesting link:

    Global warming stopped 16 years ago The Pause has now lasted longer than the initial warming cycle…..

    And this is over a 16 year period where China and India have seen massive development!


    Report this

    220

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    To Geologists this “drop in sea levels” is not a secret, it is a well known part of the sea level history that took place after the last ice age ended.

    It has been carefully given the deep six and buried out of sight by the AGW mafia.

    Here in Newcastle, Geologists point to the beautiful rock platforms that are to be seen in the coastline from Newcastle to Redhead.

    These were cut by wave action dragging rocks , pebbles and sand back and forth form several thousand years before the latest drop of about 1.2 metres.

    The cries of “we’ll be swamped” by the Warmer crew deliberately and arrogantly ignore input from specialists

    in geology just as they have done with the specialist input from physicists, chemists, biologists and

    engineers to name a few groups whose specific knowledge of the CO2 – Warming claim has been “Inconvenient”.

    Against this background of sea level movement the claims of the catastrophists look rather stupid or perhaps

    more accurately, highly manipulative.

    The CAGW theme has created great wealth and financial advantage for believers and manipulators of this

    “scheme” but has set almost a billion people in Europe and the English speaking world onto a path of tax

    slavery, wasted research effort and outright theft of public funds.

    History will not be kind to the Global Warming movement as the cost in chasing this monster into a dark,

    blind alley has been enormous.

    It is not over yet until the leaders have been tried, convicted and publicly held up to the ridicule they deserve.

    KK


    Report this

    280

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      ps.

      Somebody put these diagrams up somewhere last week. Much appreciated, and they provide an interesting refinement to the previous graphs the were available of the full 130 metre rise since the end of the last ice age about 20,000 years ago.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      It is not over yet until the leaders have been tried, convicted and publicly held up to the ridicule they deserve.

      Now how do we get that accomplished?

      I don’t mean that as an attack or sarcasm. It’s the question of the day for all of us.


      Report this

      140

      • #
        inedible hyperbowl

        I can’t get the image of wooden stocks and rotten fruit out of my mind when I contemplate this subject.

        In the US, I believe they have laws about the the misuse of Federal funds and in Australia (most states) have laws covering “financial advantage by deception”.

        Methinks that it should not be too hard to prove deliberate deception (or fraud). It would simply take a government that was determined to prosecute.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        inedible hyperbowl

        Oops sorry roy, I forgot politicians and friends of govt are not subject to the law.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Exactly!

          We have laws that should put the president in jeopardy of impeachment and then possibly criminal prosecution. And that’s not even mentioning all the others, both in his administration and collaborating with it from outside who should be investigated for criminal acts.

          Alas, we have no one willing to step up and say, “Enough is enough. This ends now,” and mean it.


          Report this

          60

    • #
  • #
    TimiBoy

    The Science is settled, remember?


    Report this

    50

  • #

    Hmm and yet last night we had the ABC program ‘The Great Southern Land’ focusing on KingsCliff and all the erosion occurring there – with the old ‘and of course due to global warming and the increasing sea levels this will only get worse’, caused a collective groan in our house.

    The whole series had a try in each episode to promote global warming and failed green schemes to deal with it.. if one blocked out the required green spin what was left was actually worth watching.


    Report this

    150

  • #
    pattoh

    Gee it is a pity our mates over at Slater & Gordon look like they are heading for a bit of a rough patch: I could imagine there will be an argument for a class action or two between some coastal real estate & all tiers of government. However I guess the top of the tree so to speak would be our federal scientific institutions with their “State of the Climate” releases.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Now does this mean Australia was pushed up from below or that sea level actually declined? Or is it a combination of both?

    It seems like that question is important — and unanswered.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The real questions are:

      Sea level changes, relative to what? The shore line?

      But the land moves, relative to what? The hypothetical centre of the earth?

      But that assumes a stable sphere, which it is not. The earth is mostly molten magma, and so is distorted by external magnetic forces.

      So what is actually being discussed here? Where is the fixed reference point?


      Report this

      100

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi RW

        The time based thing is important but we are only going back 20,000 years so the centre of each continent or island is a good enough reference point to measure sea level from.

        Over millions of years there is a different scale and as you mention the lateral and vertical location of the land masses would have been quite different from now.

        As far as the drop of 1.2 metres in Australia is concerned the geological reference points now in use are workable.

        KK


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          As far as the drop of 1.2 metres in Australia is concerned the geological reference points now in use are workable.

          Thank you Keith. That’s what I was looking for.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Roy

            That’s just off the top of my head but I seem to recall Isostatic change as being in the order of a mm or two per century or millenium where sea level is 2 or 3 mm per year.

            Geoff Sherrington would probably have a much better idea on this.

            KK :)


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Gee Aye

        the paper itself discusses all sorts of things. It has a very good description of the sorts of things that affect sea level and how some factors can affect estimates of past levels (ie things that might make the sea level appear higher of lower than it actually was). As you point out, the reference point itself can be a factor.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Roy

      Australia is pretty stable and as we had very little ice cover there has been very little isostatic change.

      It’s all real and in any case the 1.2 metres drop is an order of magnitude larger than any isostasy considerations.

      KK :)


      Report this

      30

    • #
      John Smith101

      Sea level changes are locally relative in terms of their land-sea relationship – this is because neither the land nor sea level is stable. The land can subside due to plate tectonics resulting in subinduction or crustal tilting, or rise due to isostatic adjustment (the Earth’s crust rebounding after ice cap or ice sheet glaciations – commonly called post-glacial rebound), orogeny (mountain building), as well as deposition (a result of upstream erosion and/or coastal longshore drift) creating new land surfaces.

      Sea level does not rise or fall uniformly over the oceans, as it is somewhat dependent on ocean heat storage and reflects the inter-annual climate variability connected with El Nińo-South Oscillation (ENSO). For instance, during El Nińo events the eastern Pacific Ocean sea level rises while the western Pacific falls, and vice versa during La Nińa events. Furthermore, there is an annual hemispheric seasonal variation in sea levels such that there is oceanic expansion during the spring and summer warming and oceanic contraction during the autumn and winter cooling. Just this seasonal and inter-annual variability results in sea level changes of up to ±400mm around the global mean sea level (GMSL). This variability alone is sufficient to impact atolls, especially in combination with storm surges and spring tides. As well, as far as I know, the influence of imbalances in river and groundwater in-flows to the ocean versus net oceanic evaporation are not known in terms of effects on the GMSL.


      Report this

      31

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    O/T but check out

    http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/14/lewandowsky-and-hide-the-decline/

    Steve McIntyre sure has a way with words


    Report this

    30

  • #
    JK

    I have dubbed the whole of the global warming movement “Scientific Correctness” or “SC”, a variant of Political Correctness.
    It has a similar purpose as PC, as it tries to socially (and economically) blackmail everybody into a certain form of believe and from there into a certain form of behavior.
    In SC the believe is that only science can be the savior of the world, especially a certain form of science. This automatically exclude all other forms of science, especially those sciences that would contradict what the SC followers deem to be the one and only science.
    This SC has caused major damage to our economies. It has also caused major damage to science in general. We have to double check everything that is being published under the header of science (and beyond) to make sure that it has not been written to further an economical/political agenda. Of course there are still many, many scientists who carry the word “ethics” prominently on their banners and will not deviate from the true laws of science. Lets hope that, by our continual support, we can help these real scientists with their true to prevail and can get rid of the SC bunch.


    Report this

    90

  • #

    Have no fear. Some “expert” on climate will come along and debunk this study, just as Tamino did with the P.J Watson study that showed from raw data that the rise in Australian sea-levels over the past century was decelerating.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    pat

    billions more wasted on CAGW water policies, but what the heck:

    15 Oct: Courier Mail: Tuck Thompson/Mark Solomons: Newman Government turns taps back on to raise cash
    RESIDENTS of the southeast will be encouraged to dump their drought mentality as the Government looks to boost revenue from its plentiful water supplies to pay down debt.
    The Courier-Mail can reveal the Newman Government is set to ease – or even ditch – so-called “permanent” water restrictions by January in a bid to boost revenues…
    ***The Newman Government is also set to shut down the $2.5 billion recycled water plant and associated pipelines, showpieces of the Beattie and Bligh Labor administrations.
    It will be a further piece of costly drought-busting infrastructure shelved amid falling demand, after the Tugun desalination plant was mothballed earlier this year.
    But despite the planned cutbacks and revenue-raising, the LNP faces a struggle to honour election pledges to reduce water bills to ease cost-of-living pressures.
    In the short term, it is eyeing some creative accounting to allow the newly merged super water supplier to start debt free with enough capital to allow water prices to fall.
    Treasury officials are understood to be looking at shuffling some $3 billion of debt off the existing water utilities and on to the Government’s books.
    The new water super supplier, to be set up in January and running by July, would then be debt free.Without debt to service, it would have enough capital to allow water prices to drop and encourage increased consumer use of water…
    The LNP inherited a $7 billion water infrastructure debt burden from Labor that is costing it more than $400 million a year in interest.
    But the Labor legacy also included a sophisticated water grid and dams with enough water in them for at least 10 years of supply at current low rates of usage…
    (FIRST COMMENT) It’s not the restrictions that is the problem it’s the amount they charge that is the problem. We are careful with what water we use and it still costs over $350.00. I won’t be wasting water just to help Mr Newman raise money.
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/newman-government-turns-taps-back-on-to-raise-cash/story-e6freoof-1226495751510


    Report this

    50

    • #
      debbie

      Wow!
      That looks like a clasic case of same s**t different day!
      Especially if we read the comments.
      I have been closely following the MDB water debate….it is definitely all related.
      Maybe one of the regulars here could analyse this one?
      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn/sat/data/acorn_code_release201210_v1.0.pdf
      The disclaimers at the end indicate that is is relevant to both “Climate Change” and the MDB water debacle via the Water Act 2007


      Report this

      30

      • #
        MaxL

        Hi debbie,
        I hate to see a reasonable question ignored, so FWIW may I offer my interpretation of the link you have supplied.

        Firstly the computer code supplied is merely a few of the “functions” defined within the full program. Such functions can be, and usually are, written to be universal. In that, they can be used in other programs providing the input data is of the same format. So whether it be a climate change program or a water management program, the functions could be useful.

        Other than a specific reference to 1961-1990 as an exception, I can see nothing which is unusual. However there may be a valid reason for this exception, so no inference can be drawn from this without access to the full program and the input data. Although of course, this would make this particular function not universal.

        The Overview section describes the reason for the paper which is to improve or optimize the code. Again, this is not unusual in my experience (FWIW).

        The disclaimer section seems to be the now common, all care but no responsibility taken type of legal protection. In other words, if you use this product and it causes a problem then tough titties. It is likely to be simple copy and paste text appended to all such documents.

        I hope this addresses the question you raised.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    handjive

    The Climate Controlling Commission with a tax disagrees:

    “The Kwinana Freeway and Perth’s riverside roads will flood every two weeks and parks and beaches including Cottesloe will disappear by 2100, according to sea-level rise predictions released by the federal government’s Climate Commissioner yesterday.

    The commission’s report The Critical Decade has found sea levels around Australia’s west and far north have risen the most, with an eight millimetre rise recorded since the early 1990s.

    We’re predicting that it will start having an effect in the next 30-40 years. We have to do something about it.

    The figure is much higher than the United Nations’ 2007 forecast of 59 centimetres but below the 0.9-1.6 metres predicted by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program earlier this month.

    Professor Chari Pattiaratchi from the University of Western Australia’s Oceans Institute said a sea level rise of one metre by 2100 was now the accepted measurement among climate change scientists.”

    PS. It’s worse than wot we thought, guv:

    “There will be increased humidity, that means dengue fever and malaria would be coming down to Perth. So it’s not good.”

    And you thought a Whyalla Wipe Out was scary.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I have noticed that these types of prediction are invariably based on timescales that are longer than a career. Thus, nobody is going to loose their job for being proven wrong. Ergo, you can make the most outlandish claims imaginable, and nobody is to be held to account.

      What we need to do, is to say, “Fine, we absolutely except the veracity of that, but need it broken down into annual increments, based on the distribution model you have applied to get to your prediction”.

      Then we sit back and question why all of their predicted increase appears just after their due retirement date.


      Report this

      110

    • #

      All the more reason to have their pensions linked to their predictions.

      When the observed trend is outside the bounds of certainty expressed in the predictions, their pensions are cut accordingly.

      The objective is to have the uncertainties publicised as much as the predictions.

      Predictions are easy. Correct forecasts are hard.


      Report this

      80

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        What is more, the earth-shattering new publication will often have a significant break point in its time graphs corresponding to the year the paper was submitted for publication. (Therefore, ‘we present new data’.)


        Report this

        30

  • #
    James

    [Comment reinstated - Jo]

    There are many details to be worked out. People like Jerry Mitrovica do so for a living.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Jerry-Mitrovica-Current-Sea-Level-Rise-is-Anomalous-Weve-Seen-Nothing-like-it-for-the-last-10000-Years.html

    [This comment was moderated partly because I hadn't explained myself well enough to the mods. Though James, if your point was that I'm wrong and Jerry is right due to "argument from authority" then technically your comment fails to make the official bar anyhow. Commenters (of all kinds) please don't just post links, make a point, tell us why you're posting a link. - Jo ]


    Report this

    012

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Complete.

      Unscientific.

      Rubbish.

      Actually, It’s an insult to all those who have studied and done the hard yards to get an education to put

      this trash up as “science”.

      Additionally there are a lot of very smart people using this blog who have no scientific background but by virtue of innate common sense, testing and weighing comments, and putting two and two together, have come up with the only conclusion possible.

      CAGW via CO2 is a scam.

      KK


      Report this

      150

      • #
        James

        (SNIPPED)

        (When will you get back on topic and discuss the merit of the blog post?) CTS


        Report this

        07

      • #
        James

        Or will you continue to make assertions without evidence to back you up?

        (When will you talk about THIS blog post topic instead?) CTS


        Report this

        010

        • #
          Heywood

          Or will you continue to make assertions without evidence to back you up?

          You started it by referencing Septic Science.


          Report this

          70

        • #
          debbie

          Hey James,
          It isn’t possible to disprove something that wasn’t claimed in the first place.
          KK DID NOT say that JM had no credentials or that he hasn’t published.
          What he WROTE was that this particular link that you have put up here was complete, unscientific rubbish.
          I’m sure if he can be bothered he will explain that asertion.
          But you could also take a stroll through his many comments here and discover he has actually pointed it out (with evidence) many times.
          BTW, James….in this particular instance JM is defending the methodology used by the IPPC re SLR and is even claiming that they weren’t ‘alarmist’ enough.
          So….it actually doesn’t have a great deal to with science.
          KK is basically correct…..we are looking at something else entirely.


          Report this

          50

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Debbie, No I’m not going to bother.

            I have spent too much time watching BobC and others spend inordinate amounts of time and energy

            replying point by point to these Associates only to get a reply which shows they have disregarded the

            comments offered.

            The height of ignorance and showing that their presence is about politics and disruption.

            KK


            Report this

            60

        • #

          James, as handjive points out in #14, Jerry Mitrovica makes a ridiculous claim.

          Jerry picks the last “10,000 years”, knowing that sea levels rose 125m in the 10k before then. Cherry picking. We have enough trouble assessing sea level rise to the millimeter in the 20th Century — how could anyone say it was “unprecedented” for all the less well known centuries before the middle ages?


          Report this

          70

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            As soon as I saw the headline on “Jerry’s” piece referred to at SkS it was obvious that he had cherry

            picked the time period to include the last bit of the big melt only.

            Further scanning showed that he viewed the current 2 or 3 mm rise as “anomalous”.

            It’s not anomalous it’s scandalous.

            During the big melt, from the impulse about 15,000 years ago, the average annual rise for the heavy

            duty part of the melting until it topped out 7 kya was 14 mm per year or about 6 times more rapid than

            Jerry’s anomalous comment.

            From the start of the impulse there was a period of about 1500 years, ending 13 kya when

            the annual rate of SLR was just over 20 mm per year. That’s sea level rise.

            I think Jerry was acting as a scaremonger for purposes outside the bounds of legitimate discussion which is why I made the comment above about “rubbish”.

            When someone merely throws in a reference to an article like that and with no personal contribution it suggests that they either don’t have a clue or are engaged in browbeating people.

            KK :) .


            Report this

            40

          • #
            James

            [This comment was moderated partly because I hadn't explained myself well enough to the mods.

            The mods do seem a bit trigger happy.

            Though James, if your point was that I'm wrong and Jerry is right due to "argument from authority" then technically your comment fails to make the official bar anyhow.

            No - my point was not one of arguing from authority. If you watch the video he does not do that.

            My point is that he explains why recent sea level rise is unusual in the past couple of thousand years. He gives three examples of evidence to support his reasoning.

            So sea levels aren't falling and your statement "If Australian sea levels keep falling at this rate, we might really need to save That Reef." is incorrect and I would say even frivolous given the serious threat sea level rise poses to some low-lying countries.

            Commenters (of all kinds) please don't just post links, make a point, tell us why you're posting a link. - Jo ]

            Sure – point taken. Will attempt do better in future.


            Report this

            03

          • #
            James

            Jerry picks the last “10,000 years”, knowing that sea levels rose 125m in the 10k before then. Cherry picking.

            No. He’s addressing the claim that “it has been rising for about 2mm/yr for 2,000 years”.

            If the argument was “Sea level has rising like this before” then the next step would be to try and understand what caused the previous rise, and is it to blame for today’s rise.

            As far as I know, based up the Milakovitch cycles, we’re supposed to be still heading very slowly towards another ice age, but for for tens of thousands of years.


            Report this

            03

      • #
        inedible hyperbowl

        CAGW via CO2 is a scam.

        You silver tongue you.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      handjive

      A link to nonSkeptical Science.

      Who can resist the challenge?

      Watching the video supplied of Jerry Mitrovica supplied (& recommended @ non SkS), it wasn’t long before bs alarms were ringing & collating a number of simple links in rebuttal was underway.

      But, one will suffice.

      .

      At 9.44 into video Mitrovica goes to his 3rd dataset. Quote:

      “A herculean compilation by Stevenson & Morrison about a decade ago.”

      “They looked at ancient eclipse records which told of when, uhh, of course, these ‘ancient’ cultures, the babylonian and chinese etc, weren’t really astrophysicists or astronomers, they were more ‘astrologers’, eclipses were harbingers of bad tidings, right?”

      .

      Whoa! These ancient cultures were just astrologers.

      Just a bunch of savage, monster fearing dumbf@cks who needed predictions from looking at stars to get through the night.

      What a condescending, unscientific view from Metrovica and by inference, nonSkeptical Science.

      Again, here is a link to the Antikythera mechanism.

      Of course these uncivilised savages devised & refined the Antikythera mechanism just so they predict their love lives for coming week. You know it makes sense.

      Again, reality collides with mis-information of bedwetting global warmists desperately trying to justify their climate science, the Gaian astrology of the 21st century.

      Only ignoramuses believe that climate stability is normal.


      Report this

      90

      • #
        handjive

        No worries, CTS.
        All good.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        James

        @handjive

        “But, one will suffice.” – no it won’t.

        Even if you were successful, that would still leave two other pieces of evidence that suggest recent sea level is unusual.

        1. @5:55 – The equatorial pacific top of coral (about 5,000 years of age) is 3m above sea level.
        2. @6:50 – fish tanks that have not shown a rise for thousands of years.

        Now to address your criticism.
        3. The science : http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/313/1524/47.short

        Recording of occultation of starts by the moon or solar/lunar eclipse does not require anything more than technical than your eyes, knowledge of major star constellations and the ability to count how many days have past. Noting lunar and solar eclipses is something even a child can do. 2,700 years ago was the earliest of the records, not when all of them occurred. And up until the last century the average person would have had a much clearer view of the night sky unhindered by light pollution.

        So what occultation records used in this research are incorrect and how does it impact the results of the study? Please be specific.


        Report this

        03

    • #
      BobC

      James
      October 15, 2012 at 9:43 am · Reply
      There are many details to be worked out. People like Jerry Mitrovica do so for a living.

      Good thing he doesn’t have to actually produce anything real to get his pay (typical of many academics). He claims that 2mm/year is anomalous — not seen for 10,000 years.

      Well, just taking the average over the last 20,000 years gives 6.25 mm/year — and, since most of that occured in only 11,000 years, the average rate during that period was over 11 mm/year.

      And, the scatter in the Holocene data shows that it is absurd to claim that 2mm/year is “unprecedented”. (Note that the rapid sea rise leveled off 7,000 years ago, not 10,000 as he claims.)

      Yep, Jerry Mitrovica has a lot of details to work out, all right — I suggest a remedial course on the Scientific Method.


      Report this

      160

    • #
      James

      I posted a link to science that was relevant to

      today’s

      sea level rise the connection with AGW.

      KK’s response was to attack the medium, not the argument.

      My post was FAR more on topic than many others here, but you can’t bring yourself to moderate even-handedly!!

      (You have yet to make a comment about what Jo wrote about.Where is your point about her presentation and what are her errors if any?) CTS

      GSYHUAFPA!

      (This comment stays in the pending bin for Jo to see) CTS

      [James, I've reinstated your comment and link. In future please explain the point you are making, and if it's only the fallacy "argument from authority" please lift your game. Apologies to the mods, I didn't explain my policy on "ads" well. James, I'm glad your comment was posted because the commenters have done an excellent job debunking it. Thanks for providing the target practice, but in future - Explain yourself - please. That goes for skeptics posting links too. - Jo]


      Report this

      12

      • #
        James

        The research (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379112003423) seems good but no where in it does it draw the same conclusions as Nova.


        Report this

        012

        • #
          Geoff Sherrington

          James, I did not claim it did. It was not meant to. We have solid earth and oceans. I was commenting on the stability of the first. It would take more papers to comment on the second, which is still global Work in Progress.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          The incredible complexity of the Earth’s climate is the main issue that permeates all Global Warming and Climate Change comment and it is important because the complexity has been used as a tool to confuse and obstruct genuine inquiry by scientists, journalists and taxpayers alike.

          The worlds atmosphere is much more complex than many scientists can comprehend and surely suggests that there can be no all encompassing final and definitive theory or model describing it.

          This is not an issue of how big a computer we can access, the final comprehensive Model is totally dependent on isolating and understanding every mechanism involved in our Climate.

          When the full list of items is done in another hundred years we will have a comprehensive picture of the Mass, Heat and Momentum transfer and chemical interaction of all facets of our atmosphere, but until that time “Climate Scientists”, Environmentalists and Politicians need to accept that their pronouncements are NOT based on science or engineering.

          More importantly all Taxpayers and Voters need to be helped to understand that such pronouncements are biased by the personal situations of those speaking and are not based on science.

          While ever we have a lazy media the public perception of “CO2 and Climate” will remain as a useful tool for politicians to implement their own agendas.

          KK


          Report this

          50

          • #
            inedible hyperbowl

            Kinky, you sound like Wolfram’s “Principle of computational equivalence” (Lots of physicists think he is very wrong).
            The essence of his pitch is twofold
            a) great complexity does not require complex processes, just more than one simple process occurring simultaneously.
            b) that systems arrive at a point of complexity that the only way to figure out what will happen is to “run the program” (wait and see what happens).

            Given that we do not a very good job of simulating something simple (in climate terms) like cloud formation, it is unlikely that we could expect (at the moment) to simulate a complete climate system.

            Apologies to Wolfram for summarizing 1200 pages in 2 sentences.
            See
            http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrincipleofComputationalEquivalence.html
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            The primary overarching problem with computer models is that they are a solution looking for a problem.

            The initial assumption that must be made in the use of models is that the subject being modeled is mechanistic, and can therefore be described mathematically. The second assumption is that all of the variable factors can be identified, and can be measured to a known degree of precision. The third assumption is that all known values are concurrent at a known point in time.

            With climate, I am yet to be convinced that any one of these assumptions is valid.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Incredible

            We were taught in modeling that where some factors are known to be steady state, you could dump them in

            the “black box” and just observe the effect of the variable you were interested in.

            For example: if you were building a model to imitate the Earths temperature between noon and 2 pm it would be OK to put the Sun’s input into the black box because it was reasonably constant.

            You would then be free to compare temps with cloud cover perhaps.

            What you could not do is put the Sun in a black box if you were doing a 24 hour model.

            Obviously the sun goes on and off.

            The Warmer scientists have put everything into the black box except CO2 and temperature and expect us to swallow that!

            KK

            That can’t work for CO2 -AGW because of the varying cycles of almost every factor.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Yes, I have worked as a modeler (Assembler, Fortran IV, PL/1 … era).

            This was back in the day when there were no university courses in modeling, you could either program or you couldn’t.

            The sage wisdom then was that three independent variables were the most any model could handle. I don’t believe that wisdom has changed over the years, even with the increase in computing power. Because the problem is not with computing speed, it is with the number of possible scenarios generated.

            Of course, this suits climate science very well. If they use dozens, or hundreds, of independent variables, then they are bound to find a scenario that matches their preconceived ideas.

            Bingo, “Computer Models have shown that … [insert phrase du jour here]“.

            No wonder they refuse to publish their code.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Richard C (NZ)

            >”No wonder they refuse to publish their code”

            PROGRAM GISS_modelE

            Browser

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modele/modelEsrc_ar4/


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Thank you Richard.

            When I dashed off my comment, I was actually thinking of Mann, Jones, et al, and not NASA. My bad.


            Report this

            10

      • #
        Joel

        Oops! I accidentally clicked “thumbs up” on this comment!

        I had the bold “comment of comment inside the comment” in mind when I did… Exsqueeze me!


        Report this

        01

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      As his lengthy list of peer-reviewed scientific publications will attest …

      There, Skeptical Science looses me right in the first paragraph. Any acolyte who automatically rates quantity of publications as being more important than quality of research cannot be taken seriously. This is especially the case when the tit-for-tat “peer-review” adjectival phrase must be relied upon to imply some degree of authority to the body of work.

      Either the research has sufficient merit to stand on its own feet, and to withstand the test of time, or it does not. No amount of review and discussion by people with the same level of status (the definition of peer) will improve the quality of poor research.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Scott

    This makes it worse this is just one council in Victoria and their budget for the 2012/2013 year. now add up all the money??

    5.2.8 Coastal Reserves ($8.3 million)
    For the 2012/13 year, $8.3 million will be expended on this category of new capital projects. The more significant projects include:-

    Mordialloc Creek Dredging $4,000,000

    Foreshore Development Projects – Reserve Fund $1,102,000

    Carrum Lifesaving Club Development $1,030,000

    Mordialloc Creek – Pride of the Bay $365,000

    Carrum Beach Carpark $300,000

    Carrum Foreshore Precinct Plan $270,000

    Carrum Foreshore – Public Toilet Renewal $200,000

    Beach Bike Path Implementation $260,000

    Green House Gas Reduction/Rising Sea Levels $195,000
    Mordialloc Creek – Pride of the Bay $160,000


    Report this

    10

  • #
    RoHa

    “Australian sea levels have been falling for 7000 years”

    I’m not sure whether this is my fault or not, but if it is, I’m very sorry and I won’t do it again.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    There is a paper about the then newish Grace satellite, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04141.x/abstract. The lead author, Xiapong Wu, kindly sent me a copy in the context of the “Earth Expansion” theory that some prominent geologists had postulated before satellites were good enough.
    In an email exchange, he said “However, most of the geodetic (satellite) data have been processed by several centers assuming the gravitational constant G is constant. That assumption is supported by overwhelming evidence from Mars tracking and lunar laser ranging. Currently, the estimated dG/dt is around 1X10^(-13) G per year. This number is smaller than the measurement uncertainties and not significantly different from 0. As a scientist, I would not call our result as writ in stone. It is the most recent confirmation that the solid Earth is not expanding beyond our measurement accuracy using a rather comprehensive method.
    If we take this last sentence as correct, then any measured global change at the interface of land and ocean has to be due to ocean. Knowing that takes some of the uncertainty from the question of sea level rise ( e.g. as Roy Hogue asked
    October 15, 2012 at 6:14 am. Now does this mean Australia was pushed up from below or that sea level actually declined? Or is it a combination of both? It seems like that question is important — and unanswered.)
    Note that the gravitational constant, G, would not change significantly from ocean effects unless the ocean assumed an improbable new shape that was rather asymmetric wrt the gravitometer position.
    The paper also answers the question of level change in respect of what? The datum is now taken to be an interconnected network of satellites whose positiion is eventually calibrated against the stars. It’s not the centre of the Earth any more.
    At the same time (Sept 2011) I contacted Alan Buis and Annie Cazenave (France) both of whom confirmed that their interpretation was that there was no measurable change in the radius of the solid Earth (Buis, less than 0.2 mm y^1). This does not mean that isostasy does not exist, there is abundant evidence for it, but the land figure averages out to a fixed values with regions of local excursions reconstructed to exceed 100m. But, where some land goes up, other land goes down, which is the meaning of isostasy. Like walking on a waterbed.
    Any claim of ocean level rise has to be within the frameworks in this little story, which has credible and recent claims. There is always revision of figures and their uncertainty as instrumentation improves.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      That’s fascinating Geoff.

      If only there were records going back several hundred thousand years; it would be interesting to try and note any distortion of the Earth’s major dimensions.

      As the Earth is cooling the expectation would be that it would see a reduced equatorial diameter and N-S axis length.

      On a very primitive level, which is where I operate, this should see oceans rising over the shrinking landmass and this would increase the apparent measured rise due to expanding oceans as a result of ice melt.

      All interesting

      KK :)


      Report this

      10

  • #
    debbie

    The reasearch seems good eh?
    I’m sure the ‘researchers’ are very happy they have your approval.
    You assert however…..
    but no where in it does it draw the same conclusions as Nova.
    BUT James….. neither does it DISAGREE with any of her conclusions does it?
    What particular conclusions do you think it draws that would cause you to make that comment?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    John Smith101

    Attention James at #13: during the 20th century, the rate of mean global sea-level rise was 1.8mm per year (Church & Gregory, Changes in Sea Level, pp641-693, CUP) or 180mm (approximately 7″) over the century. This rise has been calculated, in part, by analysis of 84 tide-gauge stations with a record of over 37 years corrected for post-glacial rebound (Trupin & Wahr, 1990) with no noticeable acceleration in sea levels during warmer phases or during the 1940–75 cooling period. Tide gauges measure sea levels relative to coastal benchmarks; as the land itself is subject to movement then tide gauge locations need to be away from tectonic plate activity and areas of isostatic readjustment.

    The tide gauge data correlates closely with coral development data showing a similar rise in sea levels (Toscano & Macintyre, 2003), along with sediment cores that date back to the 1300s and, since the mid-1990s, satellite altimetry. The altimetry shows a slight increase in the global mean sea level (GMSL) of up to 3.2±0.4mm over a 10 year period (1994-04) though this is too short a time period to assume either a long-term trend or an anthropogenic signal; furthermore, a 60-day average smoothing curve indicates sea levels peaking around 2006 and declining by 2008 – again, this is too short a time period to determine long-term trends (Uni of Colorado sea level change graph).

    The data to date indicates that there has been no measurable sea level rise due to anthropogenic warming (or at least no apparent signal) during the latter part of the 20th century; rather, the steady increase and very slight acceleration is most likely due to oceanic thermal expansion as the Earth moves out of the Little Ice Age, a centuries-long period of global cooling centred around the 1700s. Therefore, assumed sea level rises over the coming century are likely to be of a similar order, that is, around 180mm or approximately 7″, assuming a similar rate of increase.

    Thank you moderator(s) for the good snipping.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Jambo

    Interesting list of Australia’s most expensive property by postcode last week. The analysis included distance to GPO for each suburb but I have also added distance to direct coastal or tidal-affected rivers:

    Rank – Suburb – State – Council – Median Value – Avg distance to capital city GPO, Average distance to tidal river / ocean

    1 Point Piper NSW Sydney Woollahra $7,381,887 4 km, direct coastal
    2 Watsons Bay NSW Sydney Woollahra $6,476,767 7 km, direct river
    3 Centennial Park NSW Sydney Randwick $5,217,016 4 km, 4km
    4 Woolwich NSW Sydney Hunters Hill $4,621,152 4 km, direct river
    5 Peppermint Grove WA Perth Peppermint Grove $4,284,941 10 km, direct river
    6 Darling Point NSW Sydney Woollahra $4,235,112 3 km, direct river
    7 Henley NSW Sydney Hunters Hill $3,489,357 7 km, direct river
    8 Vaucluse NSW Sydney Woollahra $3,279,795 7 km, direct river/coastal
    9 Bellevue Hill NSW Sydney Woollahra $3,104,186 5 km, 1km
    10 Eagle Bay WA South West Busselton $2,860,776 193 km, direct coastal

    Out of the top 10, only 2 could not be described as direct waterfront. Unfortunately for the govt, and unlike the market in electricity generation, house prices are notoriously liable to change due to an old-fashioned notion called the ‘free market’. This would suggest that the wealthiest Australians (who we may assume are probably not the dumbest demographic) give little or no credence to imminent catastrophic sea-level rises. The politicians are not immune from the ‘you’re going to drown, can I get your house on the cheap’ mentality.
    Kevin Rudd – $3m beachfront holiday house, purchased 2011
    Greg Combet – Beachfront main residence
    Tim Flannery – Two adjacent Haksebury river properties.

    The hypocrisy is breathtaking.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    John Brookes

    I remain, as always, confused. Sea levels have fallen slowly for the last several thousand years. But isn’t this already well known? What is of interest is that sea levels are rising now, and a lot faster than the rate at which they were falling for a few thousand years.

    Or was there some more subtle point to the post that I didn’t get?


    Report this

    311

    • #
      Sonny

      Who know what the sea levels are doing John?
      It’s hard to trust any of the official data given the “adjustments” (read: rewriting history) in support of the corrupt CAGW agenda. You will always believe the data and sciene that supports catastrophic life threatening sea level rise somehow due to CO2..???
      I will rather assume that the sea level rise component of CAGW is a BIG CON JOB just like everything else.

      The beautiful thing is that the CSLR is not taken seriously by anyone.


      Report this

      80

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    At 61 comments and counting there is comment #7.1, wherein Rereke Whakaaro says: “The earth is mostly molten magma, and so is distorted by external magnetic forces.”

    This is quite fascinating – if true. Can the original author or anyone else explain this in greater detail?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      No, because it is almost certainly a very small effect. Gravity will outweigh (so to speak) everything else.


      Report this

      02

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      John, you got me. I am not the geologist in our team, so I was repeating somebody else. But on clarifying the comment, it seems that the mass of magma does indeed shift, based on external gravitational forces, primarily the sun, so its centre of mass, relative to a given point on the crust varies.

      The variance is not huge, but is within the projected change in sea levels claimed for CAGW, hence it is a potential source of noise in which the signal may be lost. Or erroneously found?

      I simply turned that relationship around to argue that a point on the crust will move up or down, relative to the centre of mass, and cannot therefore be the datum by which other things, such as mean sea level, are measured.

      I am happy to receive any counter argument.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    AT comment #20 John Brookes says “sea levels are rising now, and a lot faster than the rate at which they were falling . . .”

    I’m not sure what this statement has to do with anything. That levels were falling at all is a bit surprising. How fast they are rising now appears uncertain and seems to not be much of a problem. Some even claim that up to 25% of the observed rate of rise can be attributed to ground water removal and dumping said water into the ocean. This info is from a recent blog post on WUWT – Sept. 13, 2012 by Dr. Patrick Michaels titled ‘Sea Level Acceleration: Not so Fast Recently’ with data used from the University of Colorado, CU Sea Level Research Group. This is an interesting post with comments. One such by David @3:16 am.

    Also, Mr. Brookes says — “I remain, as always, confused.” – Maybe it is best we leave it that way.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      John Brookes

      The decline in sea levels hardly seems surprising. It has cooled slightly in the last few thousand years, so you’d expect more land ice, and hence lower sea levels.


      Report this

      05

      • #
        Sonny

        How did it cool? Was there a CO2 mitigation scam set up by the ancients ?


        Report this

        10

      • #

        John Brookes – the fall in sea level occurred because the Earth was much cooler than today. Once the orbitally-induced warming of the planet had passed its peak (the Holocene Climatic Optimum), the Earth began to cool – moving slowly toward the next ice age. With all the then vulnerable land-based ice gone, relative sea levels were declining because there was no glacial meltwater addition, nor thermal expansion of seawater, to counteract the siphoning of water into the regions of ocean floor that were collapsing. In other words; with the ocean volume remaining static, the draining of seawater into collapsing areas lowered sea on a largely planetary scale. It’s explained in more detail in this Skeptical Science post.

        This sea level trend has now reversed. Global sea level began to rise by at least the 19th Century, and underwent long-term acceleration throughout the 20th Century – even though there were short periods where it significantly decelerated. During the period of satellite-based observation (1993-to present)it has again decelerated, although it is still rising at around 3.11 mm per year – including the adjustment of 0.3mm per year to account for the present-day ocean floor collapse.

        This post by Joanne affirms a part of the sea level history that was already known.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    pat

    just an update on the daily mail’s met office article. in the UK, only the Express has carried a short version of the story, referencing DM. however, Express Tribune (with the International Herald Tribune) in Pakistan has it with the Jones/Curry comments:

    14 Oct: Express Tribune, Pakistan: Global warming stopped 16 years ago: UK Met department report
    A report quietly published by the UK meteorological department has revealed that global warming stopped 16 years ago with no discernible rise in aggregate global temperature, Daily Mail reported on Sunday…
    COMMENT: BY MOMINA: “quietly”!!!!!!!
    well yes it was so quiet that even we, the students of UEA, also did not hear a whisper in the campus.
    It definitely is a bad news for agencies and organisations which cash the “climTe change” cheque.
    http://tribune.com.pk/story/451401/global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-uk-met-department-report/

    MOMINA IS AN UNUSUAL NAME:

    NEXUS: momina sanam
    Location: england , norwich
    Organisation: UEA, Norwich
    Role: student
    http://www.nexus.globalquakemodel.org/author/momina

    SMILE!


    Report this

    40

    • #
      John Brookes

      Yes, that is one brilliant article. Truly pathetic “skeptic” writes article about release of latest HADCRUT 4 global data. Calls it a “report”, when its just regular release of new data. Says the met office didn’t respond to a question, but fails to mention that he never asked the question. Absolutely hopeless drivel. “Hey everyone, it hasn’t warmed in the last 2 minutes, global warming must be over!”.

      And ffs, why can’t we stick to a start date? Remember how you all loved it when Phil Jones had to admit that warming since 1995 wasn’t statistically significant? Well I’m pretty sure it is now, but don’t worry, we’ll just move the start date to 1997 and hope that no one notices. Even better, in the article, we’ll say, “since the start of 1997″, but we’ll start the graph off halfway through 1997, because it makes it look better for our purpose.

      Pathetic.


      Report this

      111

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    A bit off-topic and I apologize but this is very much ocean related and for want of a better opportunity at JoNova I’m putting this here. The point of it all is this expression and how negative feedback arises (e.g. as per Spencer, Stockwell, Pielke Snr):

    Radiative Imbalance = Forcing – Feedback

    I’ve been looking over the Skeptical Science paper Nuccitelli et al 2012 in a VERY long thread at CCG (linked below “previous comparison”). I would be interested in any comments on this latest comment there:-

    # # #

    After 47 comments from the SkS faithful # 48 cuts to the chase, identifying the same reconciliation issue that I did up-thread (see below). Reference:-

    ‘Comment on Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts

    Dana Nuccitelli, Robert Way, Rob Painting, John Church, and John Cook
    2012

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf
    ——————————————————————————————————————————–
    # 47
    JoeRG at 18:29 PM on 14 October, 2012
    Dear Mr. Nuccitelli

    As I understand it, the Table 1 of the paper only consists of the OHC and LAI anomalies converted into the necessary forcings.

    First, the link to the NOAA OHC data [11] in your paper is a dead link. It ends with the error 550: No such file or directory.

    Second, using the data available under http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html (I cannot imagine that NOAA hosts different data series for just one subject) and recalculating your OHC forcing brings the following results:

    Time 0-700 m [W/m²] 700-2000 m [W/m²]

    1970-2008 0.335 0.137
    1980-2008 0.276 0.187
    1990-2008 0.401 0.228
    2000-2008 0.450 0.217
    2002-2008 0.383 0.197

    Third, how can the standard errors of the greater time ranges be smaller although the standard error of the origin data for e.g. 1970 (+/-0.94*10^22 J) is larger by a factor of 5 compared to 2008 (+/-0.161*10^22 J)?

    So, what have I missed?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html#86510

    # 48
    dana1981 at 05:13 AM on 15 October, 2012
    JoeRG @48 – as you note, the source link from which we obtained our data is no longer available, and the link you provide seems to have somewhat different numbers. Perhaps NOAA updated the dataset over the past 6 months. Regardless, the main conclusions remain unchanged
    ——————————————————————————————————————————
    Note firstly, that JoeRG’s ’02 – ’08 700 – 2000m figure (0.197) corresponds ALMOST EXACTLY to the IPCC CO2 forcing (0.204) ’01 -’08 allowing for the extra year but JoeRG’s 0 – 700m figure (0.383) ’02 – ’08 does NOT correspond to Douglass and Knox (–0.034) ’01 – ’08 because ’01 had very low -1.6 imbalance which pulls down D&K’s figure. However, JoeRG’s 0 – 2000m figure (+0.580) DOES correspond to Spencer’s (+0.450) allowing for Spencer’s extra year of low imbalance as for D&K.

    Refer Spencer’s radiative imbalance plot:-

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/OHC-inferred-energy-imbalances-0-700m-1955-2010.gif

    Refer previous comparison up-thread:-

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/10/at-last-warming-creates-more-ice/#comment-123964

    Confining the question to the 2001 – 2008 period, the 0 – 2000m no-feedback OHC forcing comparisons are (note JoeRG and Nuccitelli period is 2002 – 2008):-

    –0.034 W/m2 Douglass and Knox, 2001 – 2008, 0 – 700m OHC
    +0.204 W/m2 IPCC CO2, 2001 – 2008 (370.40 to 384.79)
    +0.450 W/m2 Spencer, 2001 – 2008, 0 – 2000m OHC
    +0.580 W/m2 JoeRG (0.383 + 0.197) 2002 – 2008
    +0.700 W/m2 Nuccitelli et al 2012 Table 1 (neglecting LAI) 2002 – 2008
    +0.730 W/m2 Nuccitelli et al 2012 Table 1 (including LAI) 2002 – 2008

    This is even MORE bizarre than my previous assessment in which there was an error corrected here:-

    By adding 700 – 2000m OHC, the no-feedback OHC forcing 2001 to 2008 [note correction] has gone from -0.034 to +0.45, the latter being a factor of 2.2 x CO2 no-feedback forcing (0.45/0.204)

    That assessment was for D&K time period 2001 – 2008. Now confining the comparison to the Nuccitelli 2002 – 2008 period using JoeRG’s figures:-

    +0.175 W/m2 IPCC CO2, (372.42 to 384.79. global marine surface)
    +0.383 W/m2 JoeRG 0 – 700m
    +0.440 W/m2 Nuccitelli 0 – 700m
    +0.580 W/m2 JoeRG 0 – 2000m
    +0.700 W/m2 Nuccitelli 0 – 2000m (neglecting LAI)

    The assessment for the 2001 – 2008 period using the previous format is:-

    By adding 700 – 2000m OHC, the no-feedback OHC forcing 2002 to 2008 has gone from 0.383 (JoeRG) and 0.440 (Nuccitelli) to +0.580 (JoeRG) and +0.700 (Nuccitelli), the latter being a factor of 4 x CO2 no-feedback forcing (0.700/0.175)

    Nuccitelli et al DO NOT EVEN CALCULATE CO2 FORCING so are oblivious to their +0.700 W/m2 OHC no-feedback forcing being 4 x CO2. They get further inaccuracy by using 5 yr smoothed imbalance data justifying it thus:-

    Our 0-700 meter result differs from that of DK12 over the 2002-2008 period because we use pentadal data whereas DK12 use quarterly data. This result highlights the fact that the DK12 conclusions are a result of their focus on short-term noise

    I don’t think so. A 5 yr smoothing obscures the difference even 1 yr can make as we see above.

    # # #

    Next comment at CCG, a look at how Nuccitelli et al justify using 2000m OHC data which is far below the planetary boundary layer (pbl) and not used by O-GCM modelers to compute OHC surface flux (see up-thread). Nuccitelli et al justify it thus:-

    Recent research has determined that all radiative forcings [3] and heat content of the entire ocean, at all depths must be considered to reconcile these two quantities [4], including the upper 2,000 meters of oceans in particular [5].

    [4] M.D. Palmer, D. J. McNeall, and N. J. Dunstone, Geophys. Res. Lett. 38 (2011)
    L13707, doi:10.1029/2011GL047835.

    [5] N.G. Loeb, J.M. Lyman, G.C. Johnson, R.P. Allan, D.R. Doelling, T. Wong, B.J.
    Soden, and G.L. Stephens, Nature Geoscience (2012), doi:10.1038/ngeo1375.

    Palmer et al. (2007) came up with a spectacular ARGO era OHC outlier:-

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/indicators/figures/synth_single_panel_3.png


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Typo AGAIN, should read:-

      “The assessment for the 2002 – 2008 period using the previous format is:-”


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Those quizzical of what my long winded OHC comment above is getting at, please dissect this:-

      Radiative Imbalance = Forcing – Feedback

      Using Spencer’s radiative imbalance graph

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/OHC-inferred-energy-imbalances-0-700m-1955-2010.gif

      For 2002 – 2008:

      Average OHC imbalance: 0.76 W/m2 (up) (est of 7 graph points)
      Nuccitelli et al OHC forcing: 0.73 W/m2 (up)
      IPCC CO2 forcing (marine level): 0.175 W/m2 (down)

      Neglecting other forcings:

      0.76 = (0.73 – 0.175) – Feedback
      0.76 = 0.555 – Feedback

      Therefore, either there is a 0.205 (up) forcing to consider with no feedback, or there is a 0.205 feedback to consider with no other forcing, or a combination of both.

      Hansen’s GISS Radiative Forcings Estimates show no other forcings changing by 0.205 over the 2002 – 2008 period

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/GISS-forcings1.gif

      So the expression becomes:

      0.76 = 0.555 – (-0.205)

      i.e. a 0.205 W/m2 feedback (down) – what is it? Nuccitelli et al say nothing of this because they do not do this calculation in their paper, they just point to other papers saying their results are “consistent” with them:-

      4 Discussion

      DK12 noted that their results were inconsistent with a number of other studies: Lyman et al. [14], von Schuckmann and Le Traon [15], Loeb et al. [5], Hansen et al. [9], whose heat content increase estimates for recent years range from ~0.37 to ~0.63 W/m2. They are also inconsistent with the results of Church et al. [3]. However, when including the 700-2,000 meter OHC and LAI heating data, our results are consistent with these previous studies. These deeper ocean data account for approximately 30% of the net global heating in recent decades, and thus must be taken into account in any evaluation of global heat flux.

      Are all those papers “consistent” with a 0.205 W/m2 2002 – 2008 feedback I wonder?

      BUT BY NEGLECTING CO2 FORCING ENTIRELY, the expression could more easily be:

      Radiative Imbalance = Forcing – Feedback

      0.76 = 0.73 – Feedback
      0.76 = 0.73 – (-0.03)

      Or (no feedback but additional forcing)

      0.76 = (0.73 + 0.03)

      0.03 could equate to aerosol forcing. Why didn’t Nuccitelli et al do THIS simple calculation?


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Re “NEGLECTING CO2 FORCING ENTIRELY”

        This is exactly what should be done because – as CO2 pathlength curves show – CO2 forcing is exhausted by 200 ppm and the IPCC’s CO2 forcing expression (a simplification of a simplification) is fallacious. See Prof John Eggert graph:-

        http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        I may have CO2 forcing (assuming it exists) acting in the wrong direction, can someone help me out?

        My problem is that I know there’s no mechanism for CO2 LWIR to heat the mixed layer and deep ocean (not a heating agent) but even so, I’m trying to fit CO2 into the equation as Nuccitelli et al should have done. But in doing that I’ve come up with a mysterious 0.555 W/m2 OHC forcing contribution (another heating agent) that can only be solar.

        Given there’s not actually a 0.555 W/m2 solar forcing over the period 2002 – 2008, I cannot make sense of the imbalance equation.

        Going back to this:-

        For 2002 – 2008:

        Average OHC imbalance: 0.76 W/m2 (up)
        Nuccitelli et al OHC forcing: 0.73 W/m2 (up)
        IPCC CO2 forcing (marine level): 0.175 W/m2 (down)

        Neglecting other forcings:

        0.76 = (0.73 – 0.175) – Feedback
        0.76 = 0.555 – Feedback

        Should I instead be making CO2 forcing a CONTRIBUTION (a heating agent) to the OHC forcing so that the expression looks like this:-

        0.76 = 0.73 – Feedback

        Where 0.73 = 0.175 CO2 plus some other forcing?

        If so, then:-

        0.76 (TOA) = [0.175 (CO2) + 0.555(???)] – (-0.03)
        0.76 (TOA) = 0.73 (OHC forcing) + 0.03 (feedback)

        # # #

        My explanation for this unrealistic situation is that neither CO2 nor ’02 – ’08 solar is responsible for the TOA imbalance but that ’02 – ’08 OHC forcing is the lagged effect of solar input in the years and even decades and centuries prior to this period.

        Alec Rawls addresses this solar-ocean activity at WUWT here:-

        ‘Solar warming and ocean equilibrium, part 4′

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/14/raimund-muscheler-says-that-a-steady-high-level-of-forcing-cant-cause-warming/

        Anyone got a better clue on this than me (I’m hoping)?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      A look at how Nuccitelli et al justify using 2000m OHC data which is far below the planetary boundary layer (pbl) and not used by O-GCM modelers to compute upper layer internal flux. Nuccitelli et al justify it thus:-

      Recent research has determined that all radiative forcings [3] and heat content of the entire ocean, at all depths must be considered to reconcile these two quantities [4], including the upper 2,000 meters of oceans in particular [5].

      [4] M.D. Palmer, D. J. McNeall, and N. J. Dunstone, Geophys. Res. Lett. 38 (2011) L13707, doi:10.1029/2011GL047835.

      [5] N.G. Loeb, J.M. Lyman, G.C. Johnson, R.P. Allan, D.R. Doelling, T. Wong, B.J.
      Soden, and G.L. Stephens, Nature Geoscience (2012), doi:10.1038/ngeo1375.

      # # #

      Roy Spencer did exactly the same exercise of using 0 – 2000m in a blog post a year prior (May 2011) to the Nuccitelli et al 2012 paper except that Spencer’s exercise was the result of requests in comments for him to do so – not by any supposed justification from literature.

      Nucciteli et al cite Palmer et al and Loeb et al as their justification but let’s look at what a couple of O-GCM modeling papers have to say (e.g. ECCO, GODAE) but first an introduction:-

      Time Scales for SST 1 over the Global Ocean

      Barron, Kara, Gentemann and Loh, 2008

      http://www.ssmi.com/papers/gentemann/barron_submitted.pdf

      1. Introduction
      Time scales of SST variability reflect feedbacks and balances among the factors that regulate heat budgets over the global ocean. These factors are distinctly different between tropical regions and mid–latitudes. For example, Seager et al. [1988] explains that away from the equatorial regions, SST is primarily determined by a one–dimensional balance of heat storage in the ocean mixed layer, resulting in a simple annual cycle of temperature. Carton et al. [1996] provide similar findings. The net heat flux is also the main contributor for SST variability of the ocean in mid–latitudes [Cayan, 1992].

      Some penetrating solar energy is normally trapped within and below the seasonal pycnocline in mid–latitudes where large seasonal variations in mixed layer depth occur [e.g., Kara et al., 2004]. In equatorial regions, however, solar energy normally does not penetrate below the mixed layer depth and thus is used entirely to heat the mixed layer. Different processes may be regionally dominant: extensive cloudiness and precipitation in low latitudes under the influence of the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) [Yuter and 31 Houze, 2000], effects of stratocumulus clouds in cooler areas of eastern tropics [Bretherton et al., 2004], and upwelling or fog banks along coastal regions.

      OK, so what is the mixed layer depth? It actually varies from about 10m t0 just over 1000m but is mostly confined to the upper 500m

      A primer on the evolution of ocean surface flux modeling from the ECCO report series (Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean):-

      http://www.ecco-group.org/report_series.htm

      Global sea surface flux estimates obtained through ocean data assimilation.

      Stammer, Ueyoshi, Large, Josey, and Wunsch
      Report No.13, November 2001.

      http://www.ecco-group.org/pdfs/reports/report_13.pdf

      Fig. 3: Zonally integrated heat [flux](top) ……evaluated globally (blue curves) over the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Ocean sectors (green, red and magenta rewspectively)

      The deepest consideration is 1160m

      HEAT AND SALINITY VARIABILITY OVER THE UPPER-OCEAN IN TWO GLOBAL RE-ANALYSES [1960 - 2006, 0 - 300m, 0 - 500m]

      S. Masina, S. Dobricic, P. Di Pietro, N. Pinardi
      (date unknown)

      http://www.godae.org/~godae-data/Symposium/posters/S4.36-046_S_Masina-INGV-CMCC.pdf

      From GODAE

      http://www.godae.org/PA-authors-M-O.html#46

      Fig 4: Integrated Heat Content Anomaly time series, top 300m (A) and top-bottom [0 - 500m] (B)

      The deepest consideration is 500m

      It is only occasionally that the mixed layer drops down below 1000m so that inclusion of these depths is rare and the boundary varies significantly 10 – 1000m. Nuccitelli et al however, claim that 0 – 2000m MUST be used even though O-GCM modelers don’t.

      Problem is: if Nuccitelli has over estimated OHC upper layer flux by a factor of 2 (using 1000m) or 3 (using 700m), what is a better estimation and what does that do to the imbalance equation?

      For 2002 – 2008, 0.73/2 = 0.37, 0.73/3 = 0.24

      TOA imbalance = forcing – feedback

      0.76 = 0.37 – (-0.39) for factor 2x (0.37 = 0.73/2)
      0.76 = 0.24 – (-0.52) for factor 3x (0.24 = 0.73/3)

      Given IPCC CO2 forcing 2002 – 2008 is:

      0.175 W/m2 (372.42 to 384.79. global marine surface)

      There are 2 unresolved forcings (assuming CO2 forcing):

      2x 0.37 = 0.175 + 0.195 (what is this 0.195 forcing?)
      3x 0.24 = 0.175 + 0.065 (what is this 0.065 forcing?)

      Doesn’t make sense. It would be more sensible to say the 0.37 or 0,24 forcing is lagged solar heat accumulation and the feedback is aerosols, cloudiness and suchlike.

      # # #

      Next a look at Palmer et al and Loeb et al, Nuccitelli et al’s justification for 0 – 2000m.


      Report this

      01

      • #

        Richard C2 – our paper is somewhat removed from the topic of this post. Maybe when a relevant post arises, and I happen to be around, it can be discussed then.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        A look at Palmer et al – one of Nuccitelli et al’s justifications for 0 – 2000m – in view of Nuccitelli et al’s criticism of Douglass and Knox (page 6):-

        The CO2 feedback is effectively a constant value, and thus should not be calculated using such a short timeframe when data over a longer period are available. The DK12 feedback calculation is invalidated by focusing on noisy short-term data and failing to account for all radiative forcings at work, as well as all heat reservoirs, in particular the oceans below 700 meters

        Now their justification for 0 – 2000m and a longer time-frame than D&K’s 2002 – 2008:-

        ‘Importance of the deep ocean for estimating decadal changes in Earth’s radiation balance’

        Palmer, Douglas, McNeall and Dunstone, 2011.

        http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/sst-et-temp-mondiales.pdf

        Page 2:-

        “This large internal variability in SST could easily mask the anthropogenic warming signal for a decade or more, consistent with the findings of previous studies [Easterling and Wehner, 2009; Knight et al., 2009]. Conversely, trends in total energy are typically an order of magnitude less than the 1.1 ± 0.4 W m−2 estimated radiation imbalance for the period 1970–2000 [Murphy et al., 2009; see also Hansen et al., 2005].

        This suggests that under a global warming scenario, we would expect to see a more monotonic increase in total energy than for SST (and, therefore, global surface temperature)”

        BIG problem. Roy Spencer plotted total energy imbalance inferred from 0 – 2000m OHC 1955 – 2010:-

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/OHC-inferred-energy-imbalances-0-700m-1955-2010.gif

        The running 10 yr average (twice as long as Nuccitelli et al’s 5 yr OHC smoothing to eradicate “noise” according to them) 1961 – 2006 (46 yrs) is anything but monotonic rise and therefore not anthropogenically forced – sorry guys.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          How the Skeptical Science team: Dana Nuccitelli, Robert Way, Rob Painting, John Church, and John Cook (with the prior 2011 assistance of Roy Spencer), by the publication of their 2012 paper, effectively ended the notion that OHC (and TOA imbalance inferred from it) is anthropogenically forced.

          Nuccitelli et al reference Palmer et al 2011 who suggest that “under [an anthropogenic] global warming scenario, we would expect to see a more monotonic increase in total energy”. Total energy required being 0 – 2000m OHC (at least) instead of the 0 – 700m layer that Douglass and Knox applied. Nuccitelli et al stipulate 0 – 2000m as the appropriate depth to ascertain radiative imbalance – OK fine, we’ll do that.

          Nuccitelli et al dictate that D&K’s 8 yr time-frame was too short and the D&K data was “noise”. Nuccitelli et al instead stipulate a longer time-frame and 5 yr smoothing – OK fine, we’ll do that too but with 10 yr smoothing.

          Refer Roy Spencer’s 10 yr smoothed radiative imbalance inferred from OHC:-

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/OHC-inferred-energy-imbalances-0-700m-1955-2010.gif

          Our period is 1961 – 2006 (46 yrs). Now to calculate Palmer et al’s “more monotonic increase in total energy” as a result of (supposed) CO2 forcing using the IPCC forcing expression:

          dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)

          2006 C: 381.90 (Mauna Loa)
          1961 Co: 317.64 (Mauna Loa)
          ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

          dF = 5.35(381.90/317.64)
          dF = 0.99 W/m2

          If OHC was in fact CO2-forced, according to Palmer et al we should see a “more monotonic rise” of about 1 W/m2 from 1961 to 2006 (46 yrs, Nuccitelli et al’s required longer time-frame). Instead we see a non-linear oscillation, minimums around 1965 and 1985, maximums around 1975 and 2000, with the 2006 level at about 0.4 W/m2, well short of 1 W/m2.

          When the entire unsmoothed 1956 – 2010 55 yr period is considered, it is clear that there is no rise but instead the period starts at about the 0.2 W/m2 average and ends at about the 0.2 W/m2 average.

          The moral of this story is to be careful what you stipulate in your attempted rebuttal because it might backfire on you.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Nick Nicholas

    Referring to the original comment in this article about sea levels being 125m lower 20,000 yrs ago, it would be interesting to see a map projection of the world as it may have looked then. Can anyone help with this. I wonder how the northern part of Australia/Indonesia/Papua NG etc would have looked?


    Report this

    20

    • #

      Map of Southeast Asia and Australia during the last Ice Age. Courtesy Wikimedia

      A/asia


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        That is good Baa, but at some time, possibly during an Ice Age, there must have been a land bridge between what is now Indonesia and what is now the Australian mainland.

        I am not aware that the predecessors of the Aborigines new how to build boats.

        Just sayin’ … :-)


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Please ignore my comment at 25.1.1 – I see my point has been much better addressed, below. Many apologies.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi

      Did this some time ago on a site where you could adjust sea level and it would produce the map;

      and you could have walked to PNG.

      Also can use Google Earth and move offshore while monitoring the negative altitude.

      For example if you go offshore from Newcastle NSW you will need to go out about 19 kms to get to 119 m below current msl.

      This would have been home on the waterfront for the Aboriginals 20,000 years ago; now submerged.

      KK


      Report this

      10

  • #

    Proff Bob Carter

    In general, statements made by the IPCC, CSIRO and government planning and management authorities, which use the unqualified and ambiguous term “sea level”, are referring to eustatic sea level. On its own – without taking into account the factors of local tectonics, isostatic adjustment and sediment supply – a knowledge of eustatic sea-level behaviour does not enable the likely determination of specific future shoreline positions, and is therefore of little value for coastal management and environmental protection purposes.

    Singer et al NIPCC 2008 p.51

    “Sea level rise is one of the most feared impacts of any future global warming, but public discussion of the problem is beset by poor data and extremely misleading analysis.”

    “Most discussion, including that of the IPCC, is formulated in terms of global average [eustatic] sea level. Even assuming that this statistic can be estimated accurately, it has little practical policy value. Local relative sea-level (LRSL) change is all that counts for purposes of coastal planning, and this is highly variable worldwide, depending upon the differing rates at which particular coasts are undergoing tectonic uplift or subsidence. There is no meaningful global average for LRSL.”

    Fraudulent UN political organizations such as the crooked IPCC should get out of the sea level discussion and “offering up scary scenarios” altogether.

    Local authorities- with the help of local universities -should study and determine policy regards local sea levels.

    ANY reader and or commentor who believes sea level rise is a GLOBAL problem within the time frame of a generation or ten is an absolute and utter moron lacking the simplest of critical thinking and reasoned deduction skills.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Philip Bradley

    Jo, I don’t have time to read the comments.

    You mean ‘isostacy, the noun, not isotatic the adjective.

    Isostacy has nothing (or not much) to do with tectonic stability or instability. Isostasy is the principle of buoyancy where an object immersed in a liquid is buoyed with a force equal to the weight of the displaced liquid. The primary cause of isostatic changes is changes in ice cover. As Australia never had much in the way of icesheets, it has been isostatically stable.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    One of the nice things about coming to Safety Bay in Western Australia in 1968 after the “hellhole” of Villawood, Sydney; was the beaches. There have been no apparent changes in sea level to a casual observer since then… tides have been higher and lower.

    That is not to say that there’s been no measurable change in mean sea level. But if it’s unnoticed by the naked eye in 40+years, doesn’t that make any change insignificant on a human scale?

    Measure what is important. Don’t make important what you can measure.

    The only apparent change is the creation of new real estate in the bay. But even that’s not a novel phenomenon. Some clowns first put a “FOR SALE” sign on that piece of land some 30 years ago.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    having found a former pollie in almost every carbon cowboy/CAGW outfit i’ve looked into of late, i am not surprised by this one:

    9 June 2010: UK Telegraph: Rosa Prince/Robert Winnett: Nick Clegg’s wife lands lucrative job on board of Spanish building firm
    Miriam Gonzalez Durantez, a Spanish born, high-flying lawyer, will act as an independent adviser to Acciona, the world’s largest provider of wind farms.
    The company, which specialises in energy, construction and services, was recently awarded a contract to run Britain’s first desalination plant on the site of the Thames Barrier.
    Acciona has also built four wind farms in this country.
    In a statement, the firm said that the appointment of the 42-year-old lawyer would be confirmed at its next shareholder general assembly.
    It is almost certain to be controversial, given Mr Clegg’s new job as Deputy Prime Minister…
    A spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minister said: “Miriam is working very closely with Sir Gus and the Ethics and Propriety team to ensure that everything is in order.
    “Nick does have an overview of a broad range of domestic policy, but they were all confident that her work did not stray into any of his areas.
    “She has had a meeting with them to make sure that there was no overlap or conflict, and this will be constantly monitored.”
    Mrs González Durantez, a mother of three, is a partner at DLA Piper, a London-based law firm, where she is in charge of international trade and EU law practice.
    Prior to that, she worked for the European Commission, where she met Mr Clegg, who was an aide to Leon Brittan, the then-EU trade commissioner.
    In a statement, the Acciona Board of Directors said that her appointment would help their “commitment to international expansion”…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/7812214/Nick-Cleggs-wife-lands-lucrative-job-on-board-of-Spanish-building-firm.html

    Reuters: ACCIONA: Board of Directors: Miriam Gonzalez Durantez
    Ms. Miriam Gonzalez Durantez serves as Independent Member of the Board of Directors of Acciona SA. She has been on the Company’s Board since June 10, 2010. She has acted as Member of the Company’s Audit Committee since November 3, 2011. She served for seven years as Senior Adviser to the Cabinet for EU External Relations Commissioners Chris Patten and Benita Ferrero-Waldner and as Senior Policy Adviser to the Foreign Office during the UK tenure of the EU Presidency. She was appointed as Head of Trade Law at DLA Piper (London/Brussels) in 2006…
    http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyOfficers?symbol=ANA.MC

    of course Chris Patten is now Chairman of the BBC Trust.

    what a scam.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    ABC’s Bill Blakemore is the guy who had a headline earlier this year -

    “Global Warming Denialism ‘Just Foolishness,’ Scientist Peter Raven Says
    U.S. prestige falling as world has ‘pretty well given up’ on any American leadership facing climate change”

    in which he brought up Naomi Oreskes and Ross Gelbspan as authorities to back up Raving Raven’s foolishness. btw Raven has connections to Paul Ehrlich:

    14 Oct: ABC America: Bill Blakemore: Sea Level Rising Toward Washington and Other Cities
    Recently, the world’s climate experts have reported that global sea level rise is speeding up much faster than they expected only a few years ago.
    They now calculate there could well be a rise of another one to two meters before the end of the century.
    This would mean serious flooding in many sea level cities before mid century — within 40 years…
    Russia’s St. Petersburg Already Ringed By Extensive New Sea Wall…
    Russian history set this solution in motion more than 300 years ago…
    There are three general ways for city planners to think about dealing with this accelerating sea level rise, according to a comprehensive climate impacts report from the U.S Global Change Research Program, published by Cambridge University Press and entitled “Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S.” — GCCIUS — available online…
    The above online GCCIUS report is notable for its illuminating, solidly sourced explanations and its clear and user-friendly color graphics on many aspects of how manmade global warming is impacting the United States.
    Illuminating and bracing as this report is, it should be noted that it was published in 2009. The next edition will incorporate the more worrisome news about the acceleration of the warming’s impacts that has come from the world’s climate scientists since then. It is due out by the end of 2013…
    The Basic Facts of Manmade Sea Level Rise
    The World’s Climate scientists report that…BLAH BLAH BLAH
    “Once again, we’re ahead of schedule,” says widely respected climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University…BLAH BLAH BLAH…
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/10/sea-level-rising-toward-washington-and-other-cities/

    BACK IN THE REAL WORLD:

    15 Oct: Vancouver Sun: Matthew Fisher: There may be more to the Arctic thaw than global warming
    At the same time Russia, with Finnish help, has been slowly building a fleet of ice-strengthened cargo vessels capable of travelling across the north in tandem with its icebreakers.
    All this is necessary because some Russians believe that global warming will not proceed as quickly in the Far North as some western experts have predicted. Whatever the speed of the retreat of the polar ice cap every summer, ice will still cover the entire circumpolar world for at least six months a year for decades to come…
    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/There+more+Arctic+thaw+than+global+warming/7390359/story.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    not just “ahead of schedule”, but “decades ahead of schedule” says Mann. lots on the “forces of denial”/koch bros and the intimidation of scientists which is to warn other scientists against speaking up!

    4 Oct: Guardian: Jo Confino: Climate change may force evacuation of vulnerable island states within a decade
    Leading climate scientist warns that vulnerable island nations may need to be evacuated within a decade as evidence shows polar ice is shrinking at greater speeds than models predicted
    Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said the latest evidence shows that models have underestimated the speed at which the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets will start to shrink…
    “We know Arctic sea ice is declining faster than the models predict,” Mann told the Guardian at the SXSW Eco conference in Austin, Texas. ..
    “The models have typically predicted that will not happen for decades but the measurements that are coming in tell us it is already happening so once again we are decades ahead of schedule…
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/polar-arctic-greenland-ice-climate-change?newsfeed=true


    Report this

    00

  • #
    observa

    Just when I’m about to nick some prime seafront property from panicky, desperate warmenistas, another bunch of whitecoats comes along to bail them all out and jack up prices again. There orta be a Law against it I tell ya!.
    Jacking up the prices, not nicking RE you fool.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    UzUrBrain

    If I lived in Australia I would be more concerned about the northward movement of the continent than the AGW B/S. Do any of the AGW believers account for this movement in their studies? What good is GPS measurements down to the mm if they do not account for the movement. What is going to happen to the Great Reef when it crashes into China?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    I was just in Abu Dhabi. There the sea-level was 1.5 to 2.0m higher 7000 years ago than today (I have photographs to prove it, not just the word of peer-reviewed scientists/their papers). The sea-level began going down 3500 years ago, with the sabhka rolling back seaward something like 18 kiloometers in places (I saw only 2 km, but I only went to a couple of places!). The Hudson Bay shoreline has been retreating for 9000 years and is still doing so today: I got my truck stuck in an abandoned beach 2m above the current shoreline, and had to walk out through polar bear hidey-spots, so I am aware of that fact.

    At the same time, it doesn’t appear as if the fresh-water creeks identified with cairns by the Mayans one thousand years ago have expanded seaward south of Cancun since they were set up. If anything, some were abandoned (you can snorkle and find remnant column pieces on the bed of a resort where it looks like the columns were scavenged).

    So where you are studying determines what you find. What is important, however, is not what the seas have done in the archeological past, but what they have done since 1820. And why – the “why” is actually more important, but the “what” is first to be determined.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      What is important, however, is not what the seas have done in the archeological past, but what they have done since 1820. And why – the “why” is actually more important, but the “what” is first to be determined.

      Gosh, I thought it was the other way around. You’d get that idea quickly from paying any attention to the “experts”. First you imagine what, then you imagine why, then you screw everyone with your trumped up global disaster. Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work? ;-)


      Report this

      10

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      The local sea level drop, coastal NSW, is seen by geologists as happening between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    The economic tipping point isn’t far away. The political class – with one or two exceptions, like Monckton – is wedded to the CAGW scam. Even now with our debt ballooning on a daily basis they will not exploit the cheap shale we have on and offshore, we have green targets that must be met, more windmills (Prop. John Selwyn Gummer aka Lord Deben) more renewables – nuclear’s off the agenda now. No new gas or coal plant can be built without the elusive CCS. In short, we’re committing economic hari-kiri. We rely on Russia amongst other unsavoury sources for energy.

    Then I think about Germany. They’re building twenty odd new huge coal fired units – and they’re not hanging around hoping that CCS will prove possible. They are quietly and steadily dropping the green energy thing. It’s amazing that is talked about so little amongst the ‘greentarderie’.

    “For Merkel, the case is clear-cut: New power plants will secure thousands of jobs in Germany. The projects resemble a giant program for the stimulation of the economy. The power plant operators plan to invest more than €30 billion ($40 billion) in construction and infrastructure.
    Jobs are also a strong motivation for Gabriel and the SPD. Workers in the energy sector, who are members of the powerful trade unions for mining, chemistry, energy and services, are traditionally SPD voters. The party doesn’t want to make political decisions that hurt their interests. Energy security is another argument Gabriel and his colleagues like to invoke: Germany must not become dependent on Russian natural gas, they say.” – http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/caught-in-the-climate-conundrum-germany-plans-boom-in-coal-fired-power-plants-despite-high-emissions-a-472786.html

    The Germans aren’t stupid.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    Humour yourselves with this reminder.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Hi Jo
    I would like to do a story for my new newsletter http://www.PreppersNewsletter.com and put a link back to your website as well

    Story would be basically “WHY Global Warming Is A Lie” which is a follow up to my original story (see link below)

    I would like you permission to base it off these and other pages on your website with links back to ur site for references.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/10-of-sea-level-rise-is-due-to-land-rising-too-got-that/

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/australian-sea-levels-have-been-falling-for-7000-years/

    Another thing you may like to take into consideration is the USA projections of $700 Billion a year plan to tackle this fictitious event using shaman pseudo science with ZERO goals other than to try and force zero emissions from developing countries.

    Yet there is NO-thing planned to fix the Ozone Layer or any mention about how the activity of the sun impacts the weather and climate on this planet. Nada.

    Piers Corbyn
    Piers Corbyn a UK weatherman with a 85% accuracy rate based on SUN ACTIVITY is also sceptical of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and I am shocked to see that the dis-information website Wikipedia has done a half decent story on him, I am sure that will change eventually into lies.
    The Question is…
    So the next real question is :: WHERE is all of this money going along with the $9 TRILLION dollars the US FED lost a few years ago???

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fed+loses+9+trillion

    This is my article about GLOBAL WARMING
    http://www.preppersnewsletter.com/Categories/GlobalWarming.php
    I am over 50 and left school at 14 so I understand that I am not a genius especially with English.

    Couple this with the tungsten filled gold bricks in fort Knox and The really BIG question remains, where is all of this Cream going? It is too much money to keep hidden forever and the people taking it are “many” who seem strangely not to care about long term litigation for some reason…

    Thank you kindly
    Larry

    [Emailed a reply, cheers - Jo]


    Report this

    00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>