JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Cherry-picking sea level rises in Perth (a city which happens to be sinking)

“Gale Force” cherries coming your way…

Two weeks ago, it was all over the news. The ocean near Perth (where I live) was rising at the terrifying rate of 9-10mm per year since 1993, which was, shockingly, “three times the global average”. (Since Perth is flatter than flat, at this rate, in a few years everything bar Kings Park and a few sky-scrapers would be washed away). The myth started because a government department that knows a lot about our roads, trains, and buses wrote a dot point in a Fact Sheet. That was the State of Australian Cities report, and a pollie (Albanese) raved. Then the West Australian newspaper headlined it, and it all got out of hand.

In contrast, Chris Gillham got the raw data (something you’d think The Department of Infrastructure might have thought of), and shows below why its nonsense on stilts.  The rate is not measured from when records began, but from 1993, which (surely it’s just a coincidence) also happens to be the lowest level in local tide gauges since 1941. (See that second last “dip” near the right-end in the graph below?) If they’d started the “rate” from the year 1999, the headlines would tell us the seas were falling

If that’s not bad enough, the sea level data comes from two spots, 20 km apart (Hillarys and Fremantle), and Gillham points out that the rates are quite different. Apparently parts of Perth are subsiding by as much as 6mm year thanks to groundwater extraction, and one of those parts doing-the-subsiding happens to be around a tide gauge. More than half the scary rise is due to the gauge sinking.

As far as global sea levels go, Fremantle is a rare long record from the Southern Hemisphere, and is based on a very stable continent — shame about that aquifer that’s mucking up the record. Odd how mistakes, like not-correcting-for-the-subsidence make their way past scientists, bureaucrats, department heads, ministers, and then journalists too. Doesn’t anyone check these any more? Are they all incompetent, or in the grip of a mind-numbing religion perhaps?

All credit goes to Chris for doing so much research here.  — Jo

100 years of tidal records at Fremantle show a fairly steady small rise. Note how high the oceans were in the 1940′s and how low it was in 1993. Given past rises and falls, why are we getting excited about a rise since the dip in 1993? (Data: Bureau of Met.)

Guest post: Chris Gillham

——————————

Perth sea level myth swamped by a rising tide of facts

A myth was started in early December that sea levels off the Perth coastline have been rising at 9-10mm per year since 1993, three times the global average. The West Australian newspaper published a page 3 story quoting a State of Australian Cities report that Perth sea levels have been rising far quicker than anywhere else, which Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese described as “disturbing” and “extraordinary”. The foreboding news was quickly propagated by other mainstream media and the sea level myth took hold.

The facts

Closer analysis of the claim shows it is based only on a selective comparison of 1993 and 2010 sea levels off Perth that are monitored by tide gauges in Fremantle and Hillarys. The averaged mean sea level at Fremantle in 1993 was the lowest recorded since 1941, which makes it an extraordinary year for comparison since this critical fact is ignored by a Federal Government department, a Federal Cabinet Minister and the media. The mean sea level at Fremantle and Hillarys was higher in 1999 than in 2010, the most recent year of publicly available data, and a comparison of averages in the first and second halves of the 18 years since 1993 shows sea levels have risen about .61mm per year at Fremantle and 2.2mm per year at Hillarys.

Not quite so disturbing or extraordinary, is it?

Fremantle sea levels 1993 – 2010 (Note the high point was 1999)

That sinking feeling

If you’re curious about how sea levels can rise at such different rates, it’s worth noting a university report published by the Journal of the Royal Society of WA in April 2012:

“Proper quantification, mapping and monitoring of recent-past subsidence in the Perth Basin also have implications for sea-level change measurements, because the Fremantle and Hillarys tide-gauges are located on it.”

“There is good correlation between changes in the depth of the water table in the confined Yarragadee Aquifer and the rates of subsidence of the CGPS installation at Gnangara (Figure 3). Depending on the time-span chosen over which linear regression is applied, different subsidence rates can be obtained. Fourteen years of data give a subsidence rate of -4.6 mm/yr, but this increases to -6.1 mm/yr during the 2000–2005 period of increased groundwater extraction.”

“Perth will need a dedicated subsidence-monitoring program if future water shortages necessitate recommencement of increased groundwater extraction from the Yarragadee Aquifer. This would also be necessary to correct relative sea-level change measurements at the Fremantle and Hillarys tide-gauges.”

The Fremantle and Hillarys tide gauges, which have not been corrected, suggest an average 1.4mm per year rise in Perth coastline sea levels since 1993. Published university research confirms an average 4.6mm per year metropolitan land subsidence that contaminates and exacerbates the tidal measurements.

Damaging myth

On 7 December, The West Australian newspaper repaired some of the mythology it had created a few days earlier by publishing a page 6 story headlined Groundwater use sinking Perth.

“Just days after a Federal Government report claimed Perth’s sea levels had risen at three times the global average, prominent research and scientific institutions pointed the finger at the city’s thirstiness.
“Commonwealth survey body Geoscience Australia used GPS monitoring to conclude Perth’s land heights had fallen up to 6mm a year on the back of increased extraction from the Yarragadee aquifer.”

However, there’s still been no media attention to the cherry picked choice of 1993 by Federal agencies to make a sensational but demonstrably false claim, believed from the ministerial level down, that Perth is being swamped by the Indian Ocean.

That’s where policy is formulated and Australia’s coastal planning policies, which influence billions of dollars worth of property development values, are nowadays based on predicted rising sea levels.

Media bias

The media headlined an inaccurate sea change myth but had no interest in the leak of IPCC second order draft AR5 on 14 December amid claims that the heating contribution of enhanced solar forcing from cosmogenic cloud formation has been ignored by the intergovernmental panel.

The claims suggest a far greater contribution to warming by the historically high solar cycles since 1950 that finished in 1996, a blast with lingering effects on sea levels.

As illustrated in the chart below, the leaked IPCC report predicts a dangerous future for Fremantle with worst case sea levels as much as half a metre higher by 2100, based on the port city’s tide gauge which is an important southern hemisphere contributor to global sea level calculations because of its longevity since 1897.

The IPCC paints a terrifying picture for Fremantle

The leaked IPCC papers also chart different land temperature anomaly projections since the first intergovernmental report in 1990, as well as anticipated heating to 2015 and actual global temperature anomalies (relative to 1961-90) which confirm they’ve been flat since 1997/98.

Warming temperatures cause thermal expansion which is the major contributor to rising sea levels, so it’s worth comparing the IPCC’s charted global temperature records and projections overlaid with Perth’s local tide gauge readings since 1990:

Tide Gauge results from Fremantle and Hillarys are overlaid onto the AR5 IPCC graph. The two gauges look quite different to each other, but both come from Perth. Possibly also, the rises and falls in  sea level lag the surface record.

 

Observed global temperature anomalies since 1990 are marked by black dots with error bars which suggest the climate is barely agreeing with the IPCC’s best possible projections.

An interesting correlation

Despite probable contamination from confirmed subsidence of the Perth metropolitan land area, there’s little doubt that Fremantle and Hillarys sea levels correlate with global temperatures, as would be expected, but with a lag of about a year during the rapidly heating 1990s and about two years during the stable temperature plateau of the new millennium.

The temperature/sea level correlation suggests flat to slightly higher Perth sea levels were recorded in 2011 and 2012 (data not yet available), with a drop likely in 2013/14 in response to weaker 2011 global temperatures reducing thermal expansion. With solar cycle 24 currently looking chilly, it seems a fair bet that neither Fremantle or Hillarys will be underwater by 2015.

The delayed sea level reaction to temperatures doesn’t mean tide records necessarily reflect actual thermometer readings before 1990 but it’s nevertheless interesting that, due to the low 1992 global temperature indicated in the IPCC chart above (Mt Pinatubo?), Fremantle sea levels in 1993 were the lowest since 1941.

We won’t drown

So Perth sea levels haven’t risen by up to 10mm per year since 1993, they aren’t rising three times faster than the global average, land subsidence indicates they’ve been closer to flat and possibly even fallen since 1993, and the leaked IPCC report confirms they’ve been as stable as global temperatures for well over a decade.

If Australian governments and media want to research instead of ignore facts about global warming and sea levels, they might begin at Sea Levels on Perth Coastline and at Sea Level: Not so Fast released on 14 December.

Cheers!
Chris

 

Other related posts:

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (63 votes cast)
Cherry-picking sea level rises in Perth (a city which happens to be sinking), 9.2 out of 10 based on 63 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/bth8cac

185 comments to Cherry-picking sea level rises in Perth (a city which happens to be sinking)

  • #
    Mattb

    From an infrastructure perspective it matters little if the ocean is rising or the land is sinking. The scandalous page 3report in the west doesn’t even mentions climate change. It seems knickers are in a twist over nothing.


    Report this

    432

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Matt, I doesn’t need to. The fact that it was considered news worthy at all, makes it significant in the minds of the punters.

      The editors know that the punters are now sufficiently brainwashed to make the link all by themselves. In fact, they are canny enough to deliberately not mention it, so that people like you can use the lack of a reference to “debunk” any criticism.

      We live behind the Looking Glass.


      Report this

      361

    • #

      Only partly right Matt. However knowing the reason for most of the sea level “rise” (subsidence) we are better placed to mitigate/ adapt or even halt or reverse it (by not pumping so much from the aquifer). Certainly more practical than trying to reverse climate change.

      Excellent post Chris! Once again evidence trumps theory.

      Ken


      Report this

      190

      • #
        John Brookes

        Yep, lucky we’ve got desalination plants!


        Report this

        018

        • #
          handjive

          No. Not lucky. Just stupid & corrupt.

          SA WATER customers are locked into a 20-year contract to pay millions of dollars for expensive green electricity for the state’s mothballed desalination plant.

          The cost will add to water bills, which have already increased on average from $300 a decade ago to almost $900 this year.

          .

          via- Gold Coast sun- Dec 13 2012
          by Andrew Potts
          pottsa@goldcoastsun.com (not online but email address if you wish to confirm)

          Desal dries up coffers

          The $1.2 Billion Tugun Desalination Plant is costing tax payers nearly $16Million a year yet the State Government is yet to commit it’s annual $6 Million to the GC 600 event.

          The future of the annual motorsports event, which brings more than $60 Million into the economy is still in doubt, however, the Sate Government has not committed to funding it beyond next year, while continuing to annually spend $15.9 Million to keep the plant mothballed.

          The plant was the brainchild of former Mayor Ron Clark, who said it should not be decommissioned despite it’s high costs.

          “it is a good thing for the goldcoast to have because it is an insurance policy against a major drought,” he said.

          “We may not use it for years but when we will need it, I think people will be glad we have it.

          I have paid insurance for more than 50 years and never had to make a claim and this is the same attitude that people should take towards the plant.
          It is short term thinking to consider shutting it down completely.”

          The controversial plant, once dismissed by the LNP as a “white elephant” has been in “hot standby” mode since February 2011.

          It pumped water to Brisbane during the 2011 floods.
          It was originally commissioned by the council before it was taken over by the State Government in 2006.

          .

          Again, Australia is drought free despite highest CO2 levels in 15 Million years.

          These plants make NO difference to the climate.

          Climate fraud in the extreme and anyone who supports this is a climate fraud criminal.


          Report this

          70

    • #
      Mark D.

      Knickers twisted?
      It doesn’t have to mention climate change because you friggun warmist propagandists have already greased that skid. (call me if you don’t know the expression)

      Funny too Mattb, that you suddenly wouldn’t recall that sea level rise is the last stand for the warmist, given that the “heat” is hidden in the deep ocean (like a monster).

      If you don’t believe me then search here for the words of Maxine!


      Report this

      130

    • #

      Mattb, read The West’s story. The rising sea was linked to Perth’s failure to catch buses and public transport — as if it were evidence that these two factors have anything to do with each other.

      I didn’t see you protest when your favourite experts add in the Global Isostatic Adjustment (to compensate for rising continents) to show seas are rising “much faster” than what the raw satellite and tide gauge data shows. Does it matter to international policy if seas are rising but the land is rising too?

      Are we diverting precious foreign aid to building sea walls on pacific islands which won’t be needed, when the pacific islander really want medicines, vitamins, and a better education for their kids? Is that OK with you?


      Report this

      221

      • #
        Mattb

        Oh rubbish. The article just lists a whole heap of observations, but it categorically does NOT say that rising sea is linked to use of public transport.

        It says “environmental changes are having little effect on the numbers of people moving to Perth, with the city population growing by 2.6 per cent since 2001 ”

        THEN

        “That expanding population was having little impact on transport habits”

        Population WRT transport habits… NOT transport habits related to sea level changes.

        Hmm the pacific islands seem to need sea walls regardless of rising sea levels.


        Report this

        319

      • #
        Matt

        Are we diverting precious foreign aid to building sea walls on pacific islands which won’t be needed, when the pacific islander really want medicines, vitamins, and a better education for their kids? Is that OK with you?

        No, we divert it to pay for asylum seekers that make it to Australia. $375m.


        Report this

        02

    • #
      gnome

      Hey Matt- you have my sympathy. You tried to do the right thing, going everywhere by bicycle, but in the end, pumping all that groundwater onto those organic muesli plants on your balcony has caused more problems than if you had just raised grassfed organic tofus.

      Such are the unintended costs of good intentions. A fail for the precautionary principle. Another good deed punished. (… insert own cliche here.)


      Report this

      131

    • #
      Dennis

      The misleading information regardless of how it is issued is causing considerable financial damage to people who are paying increasingly higher insurance premiums and council rates related to alleged sea level rise that is not a problem.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Does Australia only have two tide gauges in Western Australia?

    Does it only have tide gauges in populated areas?

    Looking at the mean sea level changes across geographically spread data sets sould be a fundamental test in distinguishing local effects from regional effects. People are too quick to assign their preferred cause to any observed effect.

    This post is a keeper, because it is a clear example of preference bias.


    Report this

    240

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    I’m so glad. My son lives in Perth with his Australian wife and son, who is going to score an unbeaten century at the WACA against England when he runs out of partners with 5 runs to get. Now I know Perth’s not vanishing into the Indian Ocean, I can concentrate on staying fit and compos enough to witness the event.


    Report this

    190

  • #

    Jo is quite right about fact-checking. Like with economic or financial forecasts, the output needs to be critically analysed. That is checking against other known data and also in a longer-term trends. Problem is that all this stuff about conforming to the “scientific consensus” means that asking challenging questions is dangerous to ones career. Even without that, advancement within a government department depends on producing justifications for that departments continued existence. For both reasons, the proper analysts lose out the to political activists and the cherry-pickers.


    Report this

    180

    • #
      Winston

      Even without that, advancement within a government department depends on producing justifications for that departments continued existence

      By way of supporting your trenchant observations re bureaucrats and government departments- a case in point being the Dept of Vet Affairs. Faced with a dwindling war veteran and war widow population, they have had to become more creative to maintain budget in spite of an ever reducing benefit. They have just introduced what they call a “CVC program”, which guvspeak for a program of “managed care” (that none of the stakeholders can make hide nor hair of, btw) utilising a “team” approach to ostensibly keep such aged patients out of public hospitals. The reality is this program is quite lucrative for medicos such as myself, actually duplicates already existing “care planning” and delivers no net benefit, IMO, to the client (in any way whatsoever, let alone reduced hospitalisation).

      The only “benefit” I can see is for those within the department to demonstrate the worthiness of their continued funding at or around the current level, even though almost half that department could be removed with the stroke of a pen if a few eligibility rules for benefits were loosened for the few remaining veterans who have a few years only before meeting their maker- essentially bucket loads of money could be saved that are being expended employing teams of people for millions of dollars, to literally save mere thousands of dollars on veterans entitlements- “penny wise and pound foolish”=> it is actually quite bizarre, and I’m sure it is just one of the most blatant examples of the organised stupidity that is government today.


      Report this

      140

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … a case in point being the Dept of Vet Affairs.

        I am a veteran, and nobody told me that there was a whole Government Department that arranged affairs for the veterans. I presume the package include paying for hotel rooms and supplying contraceptives, etc.

        Do they also arrange the introductions, or do you have to do that for yourself?


        Report this

        70

  • #
    Robert

    excellent article Jo….sounds a lot more rational than the usual sky is falling type of stuff we hear a lot


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Bruce J

    If my memory serves me correctly, isn’t Hillary’s on land that was reclaimed from the sea relatively recently (within the last 30 years) which means the soil is still compacting, with the result that there are some problems with soil movement effecting buildings in the area? Unless the tide gauge is fixed to the underlying rock, it would be subject to the same sort of movements, more likely down than up. But recognising such minor details would ruin a good story!


    Report this

    110

  • #

    Does this mean snorkel sales will be up in Perth? I thought not.

    If the MSM think promoting fear will increase their readership, perhaps they should take into account public weariness of panic-mongering. If they want to increase their readership, a good dose of honesty would do it – a big fat juicy global scam most certainly would. Hmmmm, now where have I seen one of those…?


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Ian

    I live in Fremantle so I’m glad to hear my house built about 70 years ago and still above sea level, will last a little longer before being submerged. But that said, if governments really believe in the Climate Change mantras on seal level rises why are they allowing developers to build so near to the ocean? There has been, controversial but for aesthetic not climatic reasons, development at Leighton beach during the last decade and currently considerably more construction of sea front dwellings just south of Fremantle. I really can’t understand the dichotomy in the official view that although sea levels are rising dangerously fast it is quite OK to build on the sea front. Can anyone enlighten me?


    Report this

    110

  • #
    pat

    Ian says -

    “if governments really believe in the Climate Change mantras on sea level rises why are they allowing developers to build so near to the ocean?”

    similarly, why isn’t our govt banning coal exports? amazingly, there’s not a mention of CO2 emissions/CAGW in this FT article:

    18 Dec: Financial Times: Javier Blas: IEA expects coal to rival oil by 2017
    Coal will rival oil as the world’s top source of energy in five years, as the mineral benefits from booming demand for electricity generation and steel and cement production in China, India and other emerging nations of Asia…
    The new IEA medium-term projections, covering the 2012-17 period, bode well for the world’s top coal producers, including Shenhua Group of China, Coal of India, Anglo America, the combination of Glencore and Xstrata, and Peabody Energy…
    The watchdog anticipates that strong demand growth in Asia would more than offset the decline in consumption in industrialised countries, where the commodity faces strong head winds because of green policies and competition from cheap natural gas in the US on the back of the shale revolution…
    “Thanks to abundant supplies and insatiable demand for power from emerging markets, coal met nearly half of the rise in global energy demand during the first decade of the 21st century.” Ms van der Hoeven said…
    The report anticipates India would overtake China as the world’s biggest buyer of seaborne traded coal by 2016. China became the top importer last year, displacing Japan from the top of the ranking for the first time in roughly 30 years…
    Australia will continue to dominate the supply of coal over the next five years but supply from Indonesia, even of mineral of lower quality, is growing faster.
    The IEA said that global seaborne trade of coal, which last year surpassed the 1bn tonne level for the first time when thermal and coking, or metallurgical, coal are combined, will continue to grow strongly. The watchdog anticipates growth of 3.2 per cent a year, higher than overall consumption growth of 2.6 per cent, as more countries need to import coal to meet growing domestic demand…
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23d228f4-4910-11e2-b94d-00144feab49a.html

    coal is king, and we should be building coal-fired power stations right now.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    sillyfilly

    Yet again we have another attempt to misrepresent the facts on sea-level rise
    From the Bureau of Meteorology, National Tidal Centre:

    Recent short-term sea level trends in the project area
    based upon SEAFRAME data through June, 2012

    Location / Installation Date / Trend (mm/yr)

    Hillarys Nov 1991 +10.2

    From the last annual report:

    Precise levelling support for the Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project is provided by relevant state agencies and Geosciences Australia. The purpose of levelling sea level monitoring gauges is to establish whether they are moving vertically with respect to the land. An array of coastal benchmarks must be surveyed periodically to allow stable benchmarks to be identified and used as a reference for the tide gauge. Further information about geodetic support for the Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project is available from Geosciences Australia.

    Location/ Installation Date/ Trend in the Datum of the Sea Level Sensor (mm/yr)

    Hillarys Nov 1991 0.1

    Not exactly the message portrayed in the commentary.


    Report this

    224

    • #
      Angry

      Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told……

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

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

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

      Greg Combet’s luxury ocean side home

      http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/combets-new-luxury-home/2007/11/15/1194766872658.html

      The Myth Of Global Warming Is The World’s Greatest Fraud !!!

      Carbon Dioxide Is Plant Food And Not Pollution !!


      Report this

      182

    • #
      Ian

      Sillyfilly I’m not sure your forte is the statistical evaluation of errors of measurement. Just look at the raw data accumulated for Fremantle since 1897. Do they really show runaway increases? As an AGW proponent you have no doubt accused those who are a little more sceptical than you appear to be of “cherry picking” Why choose 1993 as the start point when looking at the data from Fremantle and Hillarys? Surely not because it is an unusually low value, possibly related to the 1992 eruption of Mt Pinutabo? What would you have said if 1996 or 1999 had been chosen for a similar comparison by Joanne Nova or Anthony Watts? Your cries of outrage and cherry picking would no doubt have deafened those in your vicinity. And as Hillarys is only about 20Km from Fremantle do you really believe the greater sea level rise at Hillarys in such a short distance on the Australian coast line is due only to global warming? Can you not see the illogicality of such an argument?


      Report this

      220

      • #
        sillyfilly

        I am using the whole data series from SEAFRAME (SEA-level Fine Resolution Acoustic Measuring Equipment) stations and the National Tidal Centre, nothing is excluded nor cherry picked. You seem to be under a good deal of misapprehension. Cf cherry picking satellite temperature data from 1979 since it only stated in 1979?


        Report this

        119

    • #
      sillyfilly

      You quote Morner via Brooker, what a farce. Morner quoted thus:
      “the sea is not rising,” he says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.”

      Now that’s patently false if you check any or all of the tide gauge record, the satellite record or the ARGO deployment.

      Even for Tuvalu SEAFRAME data shows an annual trend of 3.7mm/year

      So link to something with relevance rather than perpetrating the absolute nonsense of not only Morner but also Bob Carter.


      Report this

      227

      • #
        Graeme M

        Sillyfilly, I haven’t read the info you are referring to, but your quote suggests that the leveling exercise is to establish movement of land relative to the tide gauge. Hillarys shows a trend of 0.1 mm/year. Is that evaluating actual land rise or fall, or only a relationship between gauge and land?


        Report this

        90

        • #
          sillyfilly

          From the BOM:

          Table 3. Trends in the datum of the SEAFRAME sea level sensor as determined from precise levelling between the sensor and the tide gauge benchmark.

          Cheers!


          Report this

          017

      • #
        Ian

        Sillyfilly I didn’t expect to get a response to the questions I asked you as I don’t think you have the scientific expertise to understand the points I’m making. I’m not debating the relevance or otherwise of particular scientific papers but refer to observational data that are there for all to see. Why can’t you see them? Why was a low point picked as the starting point? Cherry picking or not? And if not why not? Why is “global” warming so localised that it is able to have different effects on sea level at two places only 20Km apart? Does that really seem like the effects of global warming to you? If so why are you posting here? I suspect your silence is that you find it difficult to answer these points as they are not in accord with your beliefs. That’s why I don’t think you’re a scientist as scientists are able to accept data that don’t fit their current perceptions


        Report this

        210

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Morner quoted thus:
        “the sea is not rising,” he says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.”
        Now that’s patently false if you check any or all of the tide gauge record, the satellite record or the ARGO deployment.
        Even for Tuvalu SEAFRAME data shows an annual trend of 3.7mm/year

        Every measurement has to be relative to a static reference point. What reference points are used with the tide gauge record? What is the ARGO buoys reference point regarding sea level? Likewise for the satellites?

        These are genuine questions, because I don’t know, but am curious.

        I have a lot of interest in the Pacific, and this quote may be of interest when it comes to assessing sea levels relative to the Pacific Islands:

        The formation of coral islands was a topic of considerable scientific argument in the 19th century. The question that particularly bothered scientists was this: since corals grow only at shallow depths in the sea (rarely below 80 metres), how is it that coral rock, formed from their remains, often extends for hundreds of metres beneath the sea?
        In 1842 the famous scientist Charles Darwin, who visited the Pacific in 1835-6, put forward the theory that coral islands had been built on slowly subsiding volcanic rocks. As the volcanic foundation sank, it carried the dead coral down to greater depths. Meanwhile, new deposits of coral were being added to the top of the pile, near the surface, so that the upward growth of the coral kept pace with the subsidence. At some later date another volcanic movement occurred, and pushed some of the coral up to form islands. Thus it was, said Darwin that a solid mass of coral rock could be found above the surface of the sea, and extend from there, through the waters in which it had been formed down to depths at which the coral had never lived.
        After many years of discussion on the structures of atolls, the Royal Society of London decided to bore down into the coral and obtain a sample of it from far beneath the surface to see if these samples would contain traces of shallow water organisms. In 1896 an expedition was sent to Tuvalu (Funafuti) which managed to bore to a depth of 33 metres. In 1897 another party of scientists led by Professor Edgeworth David of the University of Sydney carried the boring to a depth of 200 metres while the following year a third group managed to obtain a sample from a depth of 340 metres. All the samples obtained were found to contain traces of shallow water organisms, but the drilling was never able to reach the volcanic base of Funafuti. Another attempt was made in 1911, which was also unsuccessful. The boreholes can still be seen to this day, at the site now called David’s Drill. [Source: http://www.tuvaluislands.com/history.htm]

        Now to me, with my Pacific perspective, this says that the small variations in relative sea levels are normal, and are certainly not unprecedented.


        Report this

        170

      • #
      • #
        Debbie

        Sillyfilly,
        you are missing the point entirely.
        NO ONE is claiming that SL does not change.
        The point of disagreement is about the strength of The ACO2 signal.
        The ACO2 signal Sillyfilly.
        The IPCC modelling along with others that have been ‘piggy backed’ APPEAR to have grossly overstated the role of ‘human’ emissions.
        Your screeching from the outer limits of the modelling is just screeching.
        Time and emerging ‘real time’ data is not supporting your screeching.
        SL is NOT conforming to the trends linked to the hypothesised ACO2 signal.
        It is being totally outclassed by variables which humanity DOES NOT control.
        If ‘real time’ data does not match the models, then it’s highly probable that the modelling is wrong.
        But who knows?
        Screeching doesn’t help.


        Report this

        171

        • #
          sillyfilly

          Time and emerging ‘real time’ data is not supporting your screeching.

          Pithy but wrong

          And what is the ACO2 signal? If you are referring to low climate sensitivity from a doubling of CO2, then evaluate this and feel free to reply!

          So much intensity for such substantive nonsense.


          Report this

          06

          • #
            Debbie

            No sillyfilly,
            The HUMAN signal.
            It is not performing to expectations.
            Instead of correctly updating you are offering links that show adjustments.
            They are not the same thing.
            Do you understand that it is not only scientists who know how stats work?


            Report this

            40

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Hi sillyfilly

            WRT climate sensitivity from a doubling of CO2, we have Nic Lewis’ (an expert reviewer of the AR5 SOD) take on this.

            Where he concludes that…

            In the light of the current observational evidence, in my view 1.75°C would be a more reasonable central estimate for ECS than 3°C, perhaps with a ‘likely’ range of around 1.25–2.75°C.

            Do you feel that this whole “alarmist” CO2 Global Warming Catastrophe that you have been promulgating is just kinda slipping away from you?


            Report this

            70

      • #
        Angry

        This STUPID HORSE moronic troll also INFECTS Andrew Bolt’s blogs………….


        Report this

        30

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Sillyfilly,

      Still waiting on your response to this comment.

      Until you can answer that comment, everything else you say is simply noise without content.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        sillyfilly

        Refer previous posts! So full of obvious holes as to be ludicrous!


        Report this

        05

      • #
        sillyfilly

        OK truthseeker let’s do it with Jo’s indulgence:

        1) and 2) need the links to substantiate you claims.
        3) Refuting your nonsense on Antarctica.

        Abstract

        We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.

        4) putting paid to this misreprersentation of the facts:

        As a further point on the above, do you note that the winter ice extent in the Arctic has not changed, only the summer ice extent

        From NSIDC:
        Monthly December ice extent for 1979 to 2011 shows a decline of 3.5% per decade.
        Monthly January ice extent for 1979 to 2012 shows a decline of 3.2% per decade.
        Monthly February ice extent for 1979 to 2012 shows a decline of 3.0% per decade.
        Monthly March ice extent for 1979 to 2012 shows a decline of 2.6% per decade.
        Monthly April ice extent for 1979 to 2012 shows a decline of 2.6% per decade.

        So 2 out of 2 so far, I need go no further, my previous comment stand!


        Report this

        06

        • #
          Truthseeker

          Sillyfilly – more ranting and little content.

          1) and 2) need the links to substantiate you claims.

          The source was quoted in detail. Use Google or Bing if you want links.

          Using the abstract you have quoted, the net change for the Antartic sheet is -71 with an error range +/- 83. Not a particularly inspiring estimate.

          You complain about Michael not showing links for points 1 and 2 and then you do not give any links for your response to point 4. Can you spell hypocrisy?

          Since you like links so much, here is one to answer all of your sea ice questions.

          From that point you stop because the remaining 7 points are absolutely beyond you.

          Epic fail.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            sillyfilly

            So watt(sic), I gave you the data and the source and they confirm that you are wrong and completely misrepresenting the facts, why should I have to research your ridiculous arguments when they’ve no basis in science. You’ve got your answers, PROVE ME WRONG or accept that you are just a mouthpiece of those who must not be named.

            But to go on

            5) The decadel trends show that this is the hottest decade in the instumental temerature record. Perhaps you and Debbie and Exwarmist and Debbie anad Angry can come together and explain the natural phenomena that caused this increase. Pity is you can’t, so bugger off till you learn enough of the scientific reality to be pausible at least

            My original comment:

            So full of obvious holes as to be ludicrous!

            is still valid and undisputed to date!


            Report this

            04

          • #
            Truthseeker

            Your comments are

            So full of obvious holes as to be ludicrous!

            which means that are not valid and have been disputed, but reality is not your strong suit is it?

            Points 5 to 11 are still waiting an answer …


            Report this

            20

          • #
            memoryvault

            The decadel trends show that this is the hottest decade in the instumental temerature record.

            No, stupid donkey,

            First, the graph you posted purports that LAST decade was the hottest on record, not THIS decade, which started nearly three years ago, the way decades are counted on the graph (X000 – X009.)

            Second, I wouldn’t put too much faith in a graph that claims an eleven year period as “a decade” (2000 – 2010 – count it on your fingers donkey).

            .
            Meanwhile, much of Northern Europe is already experiencing the WORST, coldest winter in seventy years, even though it’s just started. Temperatures in parts of Russia are down to MINUS 50 deg Celcius. In some cities it is now too cold for the heating systems to work, and people have literally been frozen to death in their homes.

            .
            Cue stupid donkey or one of our idiot trolls to explain that “global warming causes global cooling”, or “weather isn’t climate”, or “global warming causes extreme weather events”.


            Report this

            30

  • #
    pat

    cherry-picking MSM not reporting the following, even tho they subscribe to Reuters:

    Kyoto 2 decision may be illegitimate, unratifiable: Russia
    LONDON, Dec 18 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A U.N. decision to extend the Kyoto Protocol until 2020 may be illegitimate and is unlikely to be ratified by all nations, the Russian government said late Monday, adding that organisers “flagrantly” violated procedural rules when making the international law to tackle climate change…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2107247

    15 Dec: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: Ukraine May Join Russia to Shun Kyoto as Credits Fall
    Ukraine may join Russia in shunning the extended Kyoto Protocol after United Nations envoys approved a text the two nations didn’t agree with, according to the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels…
    “Ukraine and Belarus are less likely to ratify the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol” because they object to the text, Andrei Marcu, senior adviser to the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels, said yesterday in a report on the Doha talks. CEPS advises on government policy.
    For Ukraine, parts of the text seem to oppose other sections, Marcu said…
    John Hay, spokesman for the UNFCCC in Bonn, declined to comment immediately when reached by phone today.
    Russia has appealed against the Doha decision, saying the nation’s attempts to speak at the meeting last week were improperly suppressed.
    “We are highly disappointed in both the procedural violations and the conduct of business,” Oleg Shamanov, the nation’s chief climate negotiator, said in an interview in Doha as the talks drew to a close. “There will be very serious long- term consequences for the process.”…
    Emission Reduction Units for this month rose 27 percent today to 28 euro cents a metric ton on ICE Futures Europe exchange in London at 12:47 p.m. The reached a record low 15 cents in intraday trading on Dec. 12.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-14/ukraine-may-join-russia-to-shun-kyoto-as-credits-fall.html


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Gee Aye

    sheesh, it is hard enough getting scientists to draw lines through time-series variables.

    There are simple and ways of accounting for the problem of biases caused by the disproportionate effect of end points data. Be nice to see the error range on that first graph.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    memoryvault

    Oh what joy.

    No doubt Chris has already emailed copies of all his material and relevant links to Warren Truss, Opposition Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.

    That means sometime today or tomorrow Truss will call a press conference to demand Albanese apologise to the people of Perth for scaring them with his unfounded claims about sea level rise.

    Tony Abbott will then release a flock of flying pink pigs to celebrate the day the Federal Opposition finally turned its back on the stinking dead albatross of “climate change”, and instead started to actually represent the conservative majority of Australians that they hope will vote for them in the next election.


    Report this

    152

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    IPCC draft AR5 leaked a few days ago, chapter 3 page 4

    “High agreement between studies with and without corrections for land

    motion suggests that it is very unlikely that estimates of the global average rate of sea level change are

    affected by land motion. [3.7.2, 3.7.3, Table 3.1, Figures 3.12, 3.13]”


    Report this

    120

    • #

      The changes in “global” sea level are relative to a reference globe. That reference has changed over the years. Doh!

      Sea levels also rise and fall according to atmospheric conditions. ENSO for example results in the shifting of the waters across the Pacific Ocean in sympathy with the average atmospheric pressure in the air columns above the water. Multi-year oscillations will only become apparent after several cycles.


      Report this

      100

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    While on reversals of past IPCC beliefs, the Guardian yesterday reported the Grantham Research Institute as saying that tree planting has and will have very small effects on atmospheric greenhouse gases. Lest I misquote inadvertently, read it at
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/29/planting-trees-climate-change


    Report this

    90

    • #
      John Brookes

      I know. That’s why Tony Abbott’s “direct action” to reduce greenhouse gas levels should be ignored.


      Report this

      011

      • #
        Streetcred

        JB, there is good reason to redirect you back to your land of birth but that would be unfair to that nation. Pity, I know a few S’effricans and they’re articulte and intelligent, and have contributed to our society.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Dave

      .
      Reported by the Guardian:

      “Tree planting has and will have very small effects on atmospheric greenhouse gases.”

      Reported by JB:

      I know

      You have outdone everyone this week JB – you are now “The DAG of the Week”.

      JB “KNOWS” that plants now don’t absorb CO2 – Ypu are a very foolish little fellow.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Brian of Moorabbin

      Someone better alert GreenFleet and all the various companies (many of the hire car companies) that have signed up to their scheme….


      Report this

      10

  • #

    [...] Keep reading  → Share this:ShareDiggEmailRedditPrintStumbleUponTwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]


    Report this

    20

  • #

    I suspect that the increase in subsidence, if due to the increased extraction of groundwater to meet demand, can be traced back to a change in catchment management (“water allocation”) in the reservoirs supply Perth’s metropolitan area with drinking water. That change in management results in only about half to a third of the rainfall on the catchments ending up as “streamflows” into the reservoirs.

    “Perth” rainfall doesn’t overlap with catchments. Warwick Hughes did some analysis based on the catchments’ rainfalls and those numbers support the hypothesis that catchment efficiency is down to about a third of what it was 40 years ago.

    If that is really the case, then Perth could, over the course of a few years, double its drinking water supply from the reservoirs and reduce the draw from aquifers. A plausible “rebound” would then result in falling sea levels.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      gnome

      I understand the mechanisms for land subsidence due to groundwater extraction in some cases (that New Jersey brewery pumping out of silty clay springs to mind), but not in the case of coral atolls (don’t tell the alarmists I admitted it), nor in the case of Perth, where I understand (vaguely) it is a sandy aquifer.

      Can you enlighten us on that? What kind of “rebound” could happen even if there were a replenishment of groundwater?

      (Are you using the term “reservoir” interchangably with “aquifer” or don’t the streamflows replenish the Perth aquifers?)


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Mattb

        I think it is highly improbable that replenishing the groundwater would cause the land to rise. It’s not a sponge, rather lack of water will have caused sand to settle under load.


        Report this

        79

        • #
          Mark D.

          I would agree.

          I hope Perth is not sited near any fault lines. You do know what happens to wet sand when you shake it right?


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Mark D.

          Ooooh… Ouch! sorry.

          Where is your sense of Precaution?


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Funny how quake reports cluster around available reporters. Could be reporting bias.

            If an earthquake rocks the earth and no rock hound is there to hound the rock, did the earth still rock?

            Seriously, it would be worth excluding any events too small to have been detected by the original seismometers at Perth and Exmouth to see if there really is a Perthward trend.
            I’m sure those clever chaps at Geoscience Australia have sorted that out, adjusted for Urban Seismometer Island effects and so forth.


            Report this

            10

      • #

        Web search on keywords “aquifer” and “rebound” combined yields hundreds of thousands of hits. A few “cherries”:

        Nevada
        Abstract:

        Analyses of areal variations in the subsidence and rebound occurring over stressed aquifer systems, in conjunction with measurements of the hydraulic head fluctuations causing these displacements, can yield valuable information about the compressibility and storage properties of the aquifer system. Historically, stress-strain relationships have been derived from paired extensometer/piezometer installations, which provide only point source data. Because of the general unavailability of spatially detailed deformation data, areal stress-strain relations and their variability are not commonly considered in constraining conceptual and numerical models of aquifer systems. Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) techniques can map ground displacements at a spatial scale of tens of meters over 100 km wide swaths. InSAR has been used previously to characterize larger magnitude, generally permanent aquifer system compaction and land subsidence at yearly and longer timescales, caused by sustained drawdown of groundwater levels that produces intergranular stresses consistently greater than the maximum historical stress. We present InSAR measurements of the typically small-magnitude, generally recoverable deformations of the Las Vegas Valley aquifer system occurring at seasonal timescales. From these we derive estimates of the elastic storage coefficient for the aquifer system at several locations in Las Vegas Valley. These high-resolution measurements offer great potential for future investigations into the mechanics of aquifer systems and the spatial heterogeneity of aquifer system structure and material properties as well as for monitoring ongoing aquifer system compaction and land subsidence.

        Shanghai (PDF)

        After 1963, antimeasures were taken against land subsidence. In 1965, the annual rate of subsidence in the urban area was reduced to 23 mm. From the research results of the preceding period, calculations for the relations among pumpage, water level, and subsidence for the year of 1966 were made in 1965, and the scheme for planning exploitation for the year of 1966 was drawn up. The exploitation of factories followed the plan, and therefore, in 1966, annual rebounding of 6.3 mm occurred in the urban area.

        Taipei Basin (PDF)
        Abstract:

        Several levelling routes in the metropolitan Taipei Basin have been repeatedly conducted during the past decades, mainly in order to monitor the anthropogenic ground subsidence due to massive pumping of groundwater. We analysed the levelling data released from government and investigated the rate of ground level change from 1975 to 2003, which postdate the massive groundwater exploitation in Taipei area. Based on the contour maps created from the levelling data of 406 benchmarks, the overall subsidence rate in the Taipei Basin gradually decreased since 1975, and around 1989 the basin switched to slight uplift throughout a large part of the basin. Three mechanisms are proposed to be responsible for the observed land elevation changes, including shallow soil compaction, deformation within aquifer, and tectonic subsidence. The trend of the ground level change in 1975–2003 essentially demonstrated the effects of natural recharge to previously depleted aquifers, and is explained by the hydro-mechanical coupling of aquifer materials, i.e., elastic rebound, to the rising piezometric level. The rate of shallow soil compaction is estimated about 1–8 mm/yr throughout the basin according primarily to the shallow clay thickness. Asymmetric tectonic subsidence related to the Shanchiao Fault was estimated to be 1.75 mm/yr and 0.9 mm/yr in the western part and the central part of the basin, respectively. By subtracting the components of the soil compaction and tectonic subsidence from the surface land elevation change,the rebound of aquifer strata was estimated to be about 6.7 cm and 16 cm in western margin and Central Taipei, respectively. The amount of rebound is approximately 10% in magnitude comparing to the amount of previous anthropogenic subsidence due to massive groundwater pumping, totally about 2 m.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          gnome

          It’s that “The rate of shallow soil compaction is estimated about 1–8 mm/yr throughout the basin according primarily to the shallow clay thickness” in the Taipei basin example that has me worried.

          Is there a comparable effect in aquifers which only hold water between particles, such as sand or coral/sand, rather than within and between particles? In a layered aluminium silicate (clay) water forces the layers apart, causing swelling on hydration, and a similar process seems to occur in organic material in soil, but if something similar doesn’t happen in sand, I can’t realistically keep claiming (as I do) that the sea level at the coral atolls will stop rising if they stop pumping out their groundwater. Someone may call my bluff.

          Intragranular compression doesn’t rule out secondary intergranular stress (Nevada), the underlying mechanism is likely the same. Nevada is a long way landlocked, so its aquifers are likely to be silty clay, and Shanghai I think is on a floodplain.

          I just can’t see a mechanism for sand to subside or swell on drying or wetting.


          Report this

          20

          • #

            Is it just me or does anybody always “notice things” as they go about their daily lives?

            I suspect that the “mechanism” would probably involves surface tension.

            The nature of the soil particles being “wet” by the water determines if the particles clump together or are separated by the water. i.e. clay-like or sand-like. If you can scare up a research grant for $200,000 I’ll investigate further.:-)

            You can do your own research on the beach this summer, using a bucket.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Mattb

          ok 10%. fair enough.


          Report this

          04

    • #
      John Brookes

      I thought the reduction in runoff in Perth was because rainfall has fallen since the mid seventies. Since the ground has to be soaked before you start getting runoff, a small decrease in rainfall leads to a comparatively larger decrease in runoff.


      Report this

      113

      • #
        Otter

        Say, brooksie, you have two posts with well over 100 thumbs down, Why are you still here? You promised you would go away.


        Report this

        52

      • #

        It’d improve your image if you didn’t just “think” before entering an argument but first did some of your own research, especially after somebody provides you with sufficient pointers to prior art.

        Within 20 seconds, you should have been able to falsification of “Perth” rainfall being a major factor in declining streamflows.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          gnome

          I confess something similar Bernd. I apologise for this, but if you suffered from a poor rural (mobile) internet connection you would understand. To enter a comment here, for instance, I could sometimes go and make a cup of coffee betwen pressing “Post Comment”, and seeing the comment go.

          I use “Australian Climate Madness” as my entry point to sceptic info, but often it only partly loads (minutes, not seconds)and stops before fully updating. If this was how the internet worked everywhere it would never have taken off. The gnome in winter quarters (FNQ) gets much better service, especially since the infrastructure rebuild after Yasi.

          Coffee drinking gnomes support NBN! (But they will probably all die out before it gets here.)


          Report this

          30

        • #
          Mattb

          lol warwick hughes blog a dead set “falsification”… lol. John is spot on btw. not the only factor but water only flows along a surface after it stops infiltrating in to the soil. the catchment needs to be wet before you see reasonable streamflows (or you need a real downpour where rate of rainfall > max infiltration rate).

          Bernd… sometimes when someone knows… it is better than a 20 second google and bias to a dodgy blog.


          Report this

          06

          • #

            Well, if you’re going to criticize, then you should do so instead of simply name-calling. ad hominem attack. LAZY.

            What precisely is “dodgy”. Go on Matt: Do the science thing and deal with the information that’s in front of you; compare the hypothesis to the relevant data from the real world.

            It takes 20 seconds to find the Mr Hughes’ site. But a great deal longer to check how he got to his conclusions. Which I did many moons ago. You can independently verify that I did those checks a long time ago.

            sometimes when someone knows…

            That’s not science.
            Science starts with considering that what you “know” might be false.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Streetcred

        Since when does the ground need to be soaked, brooksie ? Remember, you have no expertise in soil mechanics … well no expertise in anything really. I think it was your science-challenged bro FlimFlam who said that even if the rain did come again, the soil had become too baked hard for it to soak in and would just run off the surface. Clay soils ?


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Mattb

          a soil has a given infiltration rate. WHen rainfall rate is less than this rate it infiltrates (until the soil is saturated), when railfall rate is higher then some runs off, or all of it runs off if the soil is saturated. You are right that the initial state of the soil may mean there is a reduced infiltration rate, at least at first, and some soils (and indeed sandy soils in WA) become quite water repellant at times.

          In Perth though, as a general rule, dams don’t start filling until the initial winter rains wet the catchment a bit. Summer rainfall is next to useless in terms of creating runoff to dams. Again when winter is interrupted the catchment can dry (so for example the april/may rains that prime the catchment can be wasted by a dry June, so July rains need to we the catchment again).

          What this does mean, to me and I digress, is that annual rainfall is not the crucial number in Perth, what matters is winter rainfall to fill the dams, and maybe some early summer rain to reduce demand for watering gardens.


          Report this

          03

          • #
            John Brookes

            Thanks Matt. People who live in places that don’t have Perth’s sandy soil may be surprised. I know that when my sister moved to Canberra she was amazed how much runoff they had.


            Report this

            03

          • #

            JB wrote:

            People who live in places that don’t have Perth’s sandy soil may be surprised.

            Have you looked at the soil in the catchments? Perth’s metro area has no substantial contribution to reservoir catchments providing metropolitan drinking water.

            Further, JB’s and Matt’s “argument” assumes that there was a change in rainfall. Yet, as Warwick Hughes illustrated, neither Dwellingup nor Mundaring rainfall changed to a great degree (only about 10% compared to the period of successive, strong el Niños at the end of the 10th century) while the streamflows reduced markedly.

            A comparative rainfall history is also plotted, illustrating that a brief period of high rainfalls in the SW during the middle of the 20th century were the unusual thing. Rainfall is about the same now as it was around 120 years ago. It is a dry part of the world.

            Note also that CALM’s Alan Walker stated in 2002 that burning combined with thinning of vegetation had been shown to produce significant extra runoff into dams. Shown, not just hypothecized.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            but bernd the discussion was just about infiltration rates. I mentioned sand as discussion was local, and as an example where initial surface runoff can be higer then the norm…

            Anyway the point is that small rainfall drops can lead to higher streamflow drops, as if you like the streamflow is the cream off the top. i.e. a much higher proportion of the last 10% of rain becomes streamflow than does the first 10%.

            So I drop in rainfall of 10% could concievably result in say 30% drop in streamflow (number from a hat).

            Lastly – swan coastal plain groundwater makes a significant contribution to our drinking water supplies (30-50%). It’s not all dams and roundabouts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnangara_Mound


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Mattb:

            but bernd the discussion was just about infiltration rates.

            No it wasn’t. This sub-thread (17) is in general about water supply and under on evidently reduced catchment efficiency that is misrepresented as being the resulkt of reduced rainfall … when the rainfall has been fairly consistent over the past century except for a very wet decade or do.

            If catchment efficiency had been maintained, then about double the amount of “surface water” would be available for consumption. But as it stands, that water has to come from aquifers.

            NB: It’s not just rainfall that’s changed in the Perth metro area. Perth has previously experienced long, dry periods. But there’ve also been changes in land use. And the way in which the aquifers are used.

            The ground water extracted for irrigation comes from the superficial aquifer which is “readily” replenished by rainfall and through coastal limestone. The deeper Leederville and Yarragee aquifer replenishment mechanisms are not yet entirely clear. Some think that replenishment is via breaches in clay layers. But it’s plausible that the whole SW coastal plain has hydrologically-interconnected deep aquifers.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    spangled drongo

    The annual highest astronomical tide that occurred in SE Qld last weekend was ~200 mm below my 66 year old benchmark, a similar distance below my 49.9 year old benchmark and ~100 mm below my 40 year old benchmark.

    I spoke today to a Gold Coast City Council engineer who is involved in SL monitoring and he asked me to request an official report but said off the record that it was a “pussycat”.

    I have been trying to pass on the glad tidings to the bed-wetters at Deltoid who are most concerned but they just don’t seem to be into glad tidings:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/12/12/sea-level-rise-acceleration/

    Even at Christmas.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Debbie

      Lots of messenger shooting there spangled.
      Sillyfilly should pay a deltoid visit, lots of loving for the filly there.
      They look down their supercilious noses at anyone who dares to question their screeching from the upper ranges of the virtual reality of modelling world.
      Your actual observations are messing with their ideology.
      It made for amusing reading.


      Report this

      70

  • #
    spangled drongo

    Just to clarify, the “pussycat” was in relation to SLs, not erosion. They suffered beach erosion due to a big swell that coincided with the HAT. But that’s always on at this time of year.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Ian

    Sillyfilly I’m not interested n the South Pacific at the moment nor in variations in age. What does interest me are your answers to various questions I’ve asked and which you seem determined to avoid. These questions are:

    Does the Fremantle data from 1897 to 2010 show clear evidence of unexpectedly dramatic changes in sea level during that 113 year period and particularly in the last 40 years.

    Why was 1993, a particularly low measurement probably due to the Mount Pinutabo eruption in 1992, used as the start point? Why not use 1996 or 1999 or 1994 for that matter? Isn’t selecting an unusually low point cherry picking? If not, why not?

    If Joanne Nova or Anthony Watts had done this comparison but had selected 1996 or 1999 as start points and shown a fall in sea levels would you not have screamed “Cherry picking”?

    Why is “global” warming so localised that it is able to have different effects on sea level at two places only 20Km apart? Does that really seem like the effects of global warming to you? As the Hillarys rise is greater can’t you see there must be an additional factor or factors (such as water drawn from underground aquifers) involved?

    Your reluctance to avoid answering straightforward questions plus your constant denigration of those with views not exactly coincidental with your, says a very great deal about you


    Report this

    130

    • #
      John Brookes

      Maybe we are learning from climate “skeptics”. When you say “no statistically significant warming for nearly 16 years”, you are pushing the envelope as far as it will go. Choose 20 or 30 years, and of course there is statistically significant warming. So maybe 1993 was chosen for maximum dramatic effect.

      After all, its a big problem, and the general public has to understand that, otherwise there will never be the public support needed to tackle it.


      Report this

      122

      • #
        Dave

        .
        JB – you finished with:

        After all, its a big problem, and the general public has to understand that, otherwise there will never be the public support needed to tackle it.

        So you really believe that you are not part of the “General Public” – you are treating everyone else as different. Why do I have to understand your DAGGY false beliefs?

        You’re nearly as bad as Maxine – “YOU WILL LISTEN TO ME AND UNDERSTAND”

        You’ve lost the plot JB.

        Also a few years ago you made a bet (promise) with JO on this site about the time period with no warming – now it’s gone out to 30 years or so. Will you honour your Tim Flannery moment JB? Not long to go JB.


        Report this

        71

        • #
          John Brookes

          “Daggy false beliefs”.

          Well it keeps getting warmer (and no, it didn’t stop xx years ago), so my “daggy false beliefs” look more reasonable. On the other hand, “skeptics” regularly make outlandish predictions of a sudden return to cooler weather – and these predictions turn out to be wrong.

          Anyway, Dave, time will tell who is right and who is daggy.

          “Daggy”: (adj) great word from the 70′s for describing people you didn’t like.


          Report this

          012

          • #
            Bob Malloy

            “Daggy”: (adj) great word from the 70′s for describing people you didn’t like.

            Not in my neighbourhood John, Daggy just means unfashionable, out of step or uncool in a comfortable way, in many cases it has been used during playful and friendly exchanges of teasing remarks.


            Report this

            20

      • #
        Debbie

        Tackle it?
        Seriously?


        Report this

        30

    • #
      sillyfilly

      As I said above, there is no cherry pick, I quoted the complete history from the newest SEAFRAME data, comprende!

      In answer to your questions:

      A) YES empirical data from SEAFRAME and tide guages.
      B) PMSL data for HILLARYS
      station ID: 1761
      Station code: 472
      Country: AUSTRALIA
      Time span of data: 1991 – 2011
      Completeness (%): 96
      Date of last update: 30 May 2012
      C) NO. The trend is substantial over an adequate time frame, the figures are not manipulated, no mathematical or statistical chichanery involved. (cf Carter, Morner, Monckton, Lindzen et al)
      D) They don’t, the trends are similar at both locations and the differing data sources concur,

      And if you are still in doubt historically go here:

      http://www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1?prevSearch=author%3A+Watson%2C+P.+J.+and+Contrib%3A+Watson%2C+P.+J.&searchHistoryKey=

      Fremantle: relative rise in mean sea level twenty year average 1920-2000: 123mm

      And if still in doubt go here Freo!

      http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.plots/111_high.png

      and here for Hillary’s!

      http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.plots/1761_high.png

      Wherever you look the answer is still the same: something that the commentators seek to avoid at all costs! If you have anthing substantive to query please reply!


      Report this

      04

      • #
        Angry

        STUPID HORSE,

        Nobody is listening to your BULLSHIT & LIES.

        You won’t find any Useful Idiots to convert to your Global Warming Cult here….

        Stop wasting your time !!

        TROLL.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          sillyfilly

          You poor troll, expounding on your ignorance!

          Prove me wrong poor angry dearie!


          Report this

          02

          • #
            Angry

            STUPID HORSE,
            Please share with us all your level of science education.

            We are all waiting with baited breath for you to espouse all your degrees……….


            Report this

            20

          • #
            JFC

            Angry, why don’t you just prove her wrong rather than abuse her?


            Report this

            12

          • #
            Angry

            “JFC”,
            Querying the scientific background of an individual is NOT ABUSE !

            Just out of curiosity what are YOUR scientific qualifications………..

            By the way since you and your ilk are the ones proposing the THEORY/HYPOTHESIS of global warming the onus of PROOF is on yourselves to present hard core facts ie. real world observations, not computer simulations, which substantiate and validate it.

            There is no requirement for climate realists, such as the majority of people here, to prove anything.

            If you had a modicum of scientific education you would be well aware of this fact.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Angry

            A chorus of silence from SSTUPID HORSE & JFC on what their qualifications actually are.

            What a surprise !

            One can only assume that kindergarten science was the level they reached.

            What a pinnacle of achievement !


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    In all probability, the sandy plains of Peth were not always there until recent geological time. Sand & other particles created elsewhere was piled up to make them. Is there evidence that this piling up has stopped, or that it is so small that it should not be added in as one of the mechanisms? Some of those creeks running down from Kalamunda are rather muddy in heavy rain and are adding to the height of the plains. Anyone measured how much? And how much is dumped in a heavy wind storm? I remember a day in about 1984 when we drove from Kalgoorlie to Perth with just about zero visibility due to dust. There were local accumulations centimeters thick in 24 hours. But let’s not be too picky.
    On the question whether recharge of aquifers from rain or reservoirs will reinflate the plains, I suggest very little change, but one cannot be sure because some essential factors are unknown in fine enough detail – such as the distributuion of particle sizes with depth, the presence of saponifiers, the abundance of minerals able to hydrate and dehydrate in a cyclic way, lateral movement associated with thixotropy, rheopexy, etc – these are matters that are far too expensive to study to a conclusion firm enough to use. They would cost squillions, but to what benefit?


    Report this

    60

    • #
      memoryvault

      Geoff,

      If I remember my junior high school days circa 1960, where Perth is now was once part of the mainland shelf. Then a big chunk of it slipped straight downwards along a fault line and dropped into the ocean. The fracture line is now what we call the Darling Ranges, and actually runs from way up Carnarvon way, and also well to the south.

      At that time Mundaring would have still been on the high ground at the top of an escarpment, and Midland would be where the waves lapped a cliff-face.

      Over time, the shelf weathered and deposited sediment on the submerged shelf below, and the ocean deposited sand, until a flat plain developed. This “consolidated beach” if you like, is now largely what constitutes coastal WA from north of Geraldton to south of Busselton.

      This depositing and consolidation process was still going on 50 years ago. Whether human activity has or can stop it, only time will tell. Here is a news clip from last year, about the unearthing of some beached early nineteenth century American Whalers in what is now a car park in Bunbury.

      By definition, the whalers “beached” at what was once the beach. As can clearly be seen in the clip, the car park is now at least two or three hundred metres from the beach. At one point in the clip there is a shot of a photo taken of the location in the 1960′s. At that time the location was still a long way from the beach, but not as far as it is now.


      Report this

      100

      • #
        John Brookes

        And in contrast there used to be a car park at Port Beach that was abandoned a few years ago after a storm ate part of it. It had been there for many years before that happened.


        Report this

        116

        • #
          Dave

          .
          JB – very silly of you not to check out why Port Beach was always going to fail from 1970 on. I’ll give you a quote (you can find the source yourself) as a hint.

          There has been a long period of accretion at Port Beach that was largely sustained by the 10 million m3 of dredge material disposed of along the shoreline and further offshore between 1890 and 1970. This dredge material has been moving onshore and providing an artificial supply of sand to Port Beach for many years. This sand feed has now stopped. Presently, the southern part of Port Beach is eroding at a rate of about 2 metres per year. This is realigning the southern corner of the beach and is a longer-term trend rather than a purely seasonal effect.

          And another hint JB – I thought you lived in Perth for some reason?

          Port Beach is a popular metropolitan beach where development is located close to the
          shoreline and is vulnerable to damage from acute storm erosion. A severe storm in May
          2003 caused significant damage to infrastructure.

          Don’t blame anyone in particular – but JB this is surely a case of CAGW and more money in the CO2 money bag. WRONG.

          You are a liar for even talking about Port Beach erosion problems as being related to your zeal and belief in (CAGW) CO2 money collecting. The Dept of WA Planning and Infrastructure had all this info after the 2003 destruction of Port beach car park – and guess what – you CAGW tools and dags still haven’t even bothered to check.

          You are going to win this weeks “Bullshi!!er of the Week”. Where’s Maxine?


          Report this

          120

          • #
            John Brookes

            From that report Dave:

            “There is a greater potential for erosion during years when the mean sea level is high.”

            and

            “The global sea level is predicted to rise in the order of 0.38m during the next century, due to
            the greenhouse effect. There is some uncertainty in this prediction however this value has
            been adopted in SPP 2.6 for current planning purposes in Western Australia.”

            The uncertainty is (of course) that the estimate is too low.


            Report this

            03

        • #
  • #
    Streetcred

    NOAA 2012 report finds sea levels rising at less than half the rate claimed by the IPCC

    According to the latest NOAA sea level budget, global sea levels rose at only 1.1 – 1.3 mm/year from 2005-2012, which is less than half of the rate claimed by the IPCC [3.1 mm/yr] and is equivalent to less than 5 inches per century. Contrary to alarmist claims, sea level rise decelerated over the 20th century, has also decelerated since 2005, and there is no evidence of any human influence on sea levels.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      memoryvault

      Thank goodness for that.

      We live right on the waterfront on Bribie Island, and there is a sea wall that protects us from being eroded by the waves, into Moreton Bay.

      Using the IPCC’s figures, I calculated that I only had 260 years for the local council to address the issue, and raise the sea-wall, to stop the occasional king tide breaking over the top. Given the speed that our local council moves, that was pushing it.

      Now, thank goodness, it appears I have nothing to worry about for over five hundred years, probably longer.

      .
      So at least I can put off getting a petition going until after Christmas.


      Report this

      110

  • #
    Neville

    In Bunbury they have just found American Whaler ships under a car park buried by 6 metres of sand.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-10/shipwrecks-found-in-carpark-feature/3765748

    They were wrecked on the beach at least 170 years ago but are now found further inland than the beach.

    This is just south of Perth etc so I presume this just proves that Perth etc has a local ground water subsidence problem?

    Certainly no evidence of any SLR at Bunbury since the 1840s, in fact just the reverse.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Neville

    Sorry Memory V you beat me to it.


    Report this

    20

  • #
  • #
    Dave

    .
    Perth is a mess of environmentalists, CAGW supporters, local government experts, state & local government representatives all happen to think they hold the best knowledge base in Australia on solving the world problems of SEA level rise.

    WRONG.

    The local transport designs, the stormwater runoff catchment systems, the understanding of geology have all gone out the back door through this CAGW fear of CO2.

    The experts that are called in, and studies that have been done are all ignored because of these peoples singularity towards a goal of saving the world. They even ignore some of their own if it doesn’t involve CO2 money collecting schemes.

    These two reports from a consulting firm, and another from a WA Uni show the info that the people currently saying sea level is MAXINE rising faster than ever should really study.

    1. Report for Potential Use of Stormwater in the Perth Region (so far ignored)
    2. Anthropogenic land subsidence in the Perth Basin: challenges for its
    retrospective geodetic detection

    Some of the people here like MattyB and JB (both from Perth) are involved in the CO2 Money grabbing scheme and are happy to argue their case – yet reluctant to accept responsibilty, and access the unique Perth problem information with open minds, as being something totally different from the CAGW crap.

    But no, the intelligent group of transport minds spend over $400 million on the CITY LINK – quicker to get to Fremantle for a good time.

    Councils and State Government are listening to the wrong people and stuffing Perth.

    Get real guys & gals – Perth is sinking through useless government INCL MattyB & JB

    Evidence from reprocessed InSAR imagery and independent CGPS suggest that the subsidence is closer to -5 mm/yr.

    Forget your bikes & coffees on the Swan, and start on solutions for Perths unique problems.

    HINT: Forget CAGW :(


    Report this

    81

  • #
    Peter C

    “Odd how mistakes, like not-correcting-for-the-subsidence make their way past scientists, bureaucrats, department heads, ministers, and then journalists too. Doesn’t anyone check these any more? Are they all incompetent, or in the grip of a mind-numbing religion perhaps?”

    No, just confirmation bias, which ‘scientists’ are admittedly or, more correctly supposed, to be trained to avoid.

    If something agrees with our prejudices or preconceptions we take it as ‘proof’ we are right. If something disagrees we often reject it out of hand.

    Fortunately most scientists on the sceptic side are well aware of this potential bias and try to avoid it. Unfortunately much of the comment on both sides of the debate revel in it.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    meanwhile, queensland is being threatened! we should not be parochial, says Dr. Beaman!!

    19 Dec: Australian Geographic: :AAP with Alyce Taylor : Aussies unfit to care for Great Barrier Reef?
    Australia will be scrutinised by world environment bodies for its guardianship of the Great Barrier Reef.
    In June 2013, the United Nations’ environmental arm UNESCO will decide whether to list the reef as a World Heritage site in danger…
    Such a listing would be a massive blow to Australia’s environmental credentials, its international reputation, and Queensland’s tourism industry…
    Dr Robin Beaman, a marine researcher from James Cook University, says it is important to take UNESCO’s threat seriously.
    “We should not be so dismissive of the UNESCO concerns about the health of the Great Barrier Reef, to do so is such a parochial response,” Robin says. “The World Heritage listing for the Great Barrier Reef, and its continuing health, is vital for the marketing of the area for tourism and the numerous people who derive income from the reef.”
    Professor Terry Hughes, a coral reef expert from James Cook University, says the decline in coral cover highlights UNESCO’s concerns…
    Australia has until February 1 to convince UNESCO it’s making substantial progress on the reef’s environmental management. UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee is due to meet in Thailand in June to decide if reef should be listed as a World Heritage Site in Danger…
    http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/aussies-unfit-to-care-for-great-barrier-reef.htm

    not to worry, the lawyers & banksters will save the reef & the planet!!

    19 Dec: SMH: Peter Hannam: Green fund names climate lawyer, banker to board
    The government’s $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation has tapped a prominent climate change lawyer and a former investment banker to fill its final board positions.
    Martijn Wilder, a partner with Baker & McKenzie and an adjunct professor of climate change law at the Australian National University, will join the CEFC board on five-year terms from February, the government announced on Wednesday.
    Mr Wilder is currently chairman of Low Carbon Australia, a government fund that will be folded into the CEFC. Low Carbon’s fund has committed or offered about $85 million, which with private co-financing, has channelled more than $200 million into energy efficiency and clean energy projects…
    Occupying the final CEFC board slot will be Paul Binsted, who was previously at Citigroup Australia and served as managing director and joint chief executive of Lazard’s Australian operations.
    The moves follow last month’s appointment of former Macquarie Group investment banker Oliver Yates as the fund’s first chief executive.
    Other board members include Michael Carapiet and Anna Skarbek, both former Macquarie bankers, Ian Moore and Andrew Stock.
    The CEFC has $2 billion to lend per year, beginning next July, with as much as half likely to go on projects to increase energy efficiency…
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/green-fund-names-climate-lawyer-banker-to-board-20121219-2bmq8.html


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Dave

      .
      Pat
      Prof TERRY HUGHES:

      “Well the Great Barrier Reef is simply an example of ecosystems all around the world that are responding to drivers like climate change, harvesting, we’re seeing the decline of the Amazon, we’re seeing the loss of ice cover at the North Pole.”

      Seems the JCUNQ School of Excellent Studies in Coral Research – is an expert in FU(king everything.

      Look at this interview last month with the Prof Expert in North Pole, Tipping Points, Amazon, harvesting, fishing, and last but not leat – HEY – we get coral expert.

      After the Gravey Train of the IPCC and CAGW Professor Terryible.

      The bloke (Prof) has got no interest in the real condition of the GBR.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      memoryvault

      “The World Heritage listing for the Great Barrier Reef, and its continuing health, is vital for the marketing of the area for tourism and the numerous people who derive income from the reef.”

      Sorry, but I don’t get their point. To anyone actually currently involved in tourism to the reef, having it declared “in danger” would be the greatest promotional boost ever:

      “The Great Barrier Reef – here today, gone tomorrow – see it before it’s too late”.

      That strikes me as excellent basis for a major sales campaign. And since nothing much untoward is actually happening to the reef, the adverts will be good virtually forever.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Angry

      Pat,
      This just demonstrates what DANGEROUS COMMUNISTS these eco nut jobs actually are !
      Time for some lynchings !!

      Here are the email addresses of the idiots from jcu sprouting this BULLSHIT about Australia’s barrier reef……..

      Terry dot Hughes at jcu dot edu dot au
      robin dot beaman at jcu dot edu dot au

      Shame, Shame, Shame !

      Bloody TRAITORS !!!


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Angry

      The Queensland Premier need to tell these blody traitors to shove their bullshit up their backsides and butt out of Queensland !!


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Ian

    This is late but perhaps will be read by some. Reading through it appears that the likes of JB and Sillyfilly ( who resolutely refuses to answer my questions but rails at all those who have different views) don’t have the moral fortitude to answer their critics. Shame on you guys for not having the guts to at least acknowledge that on occasion you get it wrong


    Report this

    60

  • #

    What may have otherwise been a fair post is ruined by the inclusion of the totally pointless IPCC surface temperature graph overlain with the two tide gauge records.

    Perth is on the Indian Ocean side of the continent. If warm temperatures are going to effect sea levels in that region, the only relevant record is that of the East Indian Ocean surface temperatures.

    Try checking the Indian Ocean Dipole records against the tide gauges.


    Report this

    91

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Hey Baa, skeptics keeping their own house in order gets a thumbs up from me.

      I wouldn’t say the post was ruined by that one choice, but you have made a suggestion for improvement.

      Warmists have Pal Review, so why can’t we? :)
      Thankfully it’s not Pier Review in the Whakaarolese sense.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    slightly offtopic but Climate Change related:
    Anticipated electricity use by 2020 is less than was forecast in 2007, so by keeping the ambitious RET at the same total GWhr figure they can celebrate an increased percentage of “renewables” generation without actually adding any new “renewables”!
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-19/increased-role-for-renewable-energy/4436854

    A fine lesson in how to talk out of both sides of your mouth at once?
    These greenwashed renewables projects needed another dose of greenwashing! They must have been fading under the sun! :D

    Of course even that is not the whole truth. The only way the renewables percentage can increase is if the fossil fuel generation does not increase as quickly as renewables (or decreases). So they are either going to throw the economy under the bus to cut demand for the sources that can actually be “switched off” or else there will be a freeze on coal power that leads to power shortages as the economy grows.

    The only sinister overtone then is… since they are claiming the renewable percentage went up due to us reducing our total consumption, are they going to also blame us for the spikes, brownouts, and grid instability likely to result from more widely distributed generation sources with unpredictable output?
    It’s genius. Make an RET and ETS that raises the price of power, the demand reduces to cut costs, since solar/wind can’t be turned off they keep running and the coal plants reduce instead, the greater percentage of renewables is then hailed by the State as a glorious achievement of the People, the higher grid instability is shrugged off as necessary whilst the resulting suppression of economic activity leads to generation overheads being spread over fewer kWh leading to higher prices and… the cycle of destruction then repeats until Australia has 50% renewables generation and the lights of the Great Leader’s palace are the brightest in the land.
    You heard the man say it: “Dealing with climate change was never going to be costless…(*wrings hands*)”
    Something to watch out for.


    Report this

    50

    • #

      Not related to the main topic, but relevant in the context of Andrew’s comment above.

      The Australian Press Council received 3 complaints about an article by James Delingpole titled “Wind farm scam a huge cover-up”, and the complaints said that the article breached fairness and balance guidelines. (Judas Priest, Give me strength)

      They have just released their adjudication saying blah blah ….. but the article did not breach those guidelines. (Thank Heavens for small mercies)

      However, in their adjudication one thing that piqued my interest was the following excerpt:

      The statement that the amount of power produced by wind farms is “very little” is too vague to be regarded as an untenable description of available evidence, especially as the level appears to depend heavily on the geographic area and time period in question.

      Obviously, these people give their result based solely on journalistic principles, and have not even bothered to do some actual investigation into actual output from these Wind Plants. (And again, how I detest the use of the word farms in relation to Wind Power)

      Had they actually checked, they would have found that the use of that phrase ‘very little’ is indeed an accurate description.

      Link to Press Council Adjudication

      Tony.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Mattb

        Tricky, as “very little” is not really a criticism as there are not many of them and therefore relative to the grand scheme of course it is very little, but not less than it is meant to be given there are not many of them.

        If he had said “very little power per dollar invested compared to other traditional sources” then fair enough.

        Even at 25% though … is that “very little”… or is it just “not very much”? Oh to be on the APC and deal with such exciting issues.


        Report this

        06

        • #

          What I find ironic is that there always seems to be an excuse.

          Here’s the totals just for Australia:

          NAMEPLATE CAPACITY
          Every Source – 51,000MW
          Wind – 2,100MW (Wind percentage 4.12%) “Very Little”

          ACTUAL POWER GENERATED
          Every Source – 32,000MW
          Wind – 600MW (Wind percentage 1.9%) Less than “Very Little”

          Tony.


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Mattb

            True Tony… but surely that’s not your point. Your agrument is not that at present there is not a lot of wind power, but that wind power is essentially pointless. So up above where you have 32,000MW total, 600MW wind… well even if there was 20,000MW of wind it would still be a pretty useless source and we’d have had to install a whole heap of massively expensive wind infrastructure to supply it.

            In Australia Nuclear power provides “very little” electricity too, but I doubt dellers or yourself would write it off as a useless power source.


            Report this

            16

  • #
    pat

    14 Dec: Washington Post: Carol D. Leonig: Solar firms probed for possible ‘misrepresentations’ in getting public money
    Three of the country’s most prolific installers of residential solar panels are under federal investigation to determine if they inflated the cost of their work to increase the payments they would receive from the government, according to government and industry officials familiar with the probe.
    SolarCity, SunRun and Sungevity have received subpoenas from the Treasury Department’s office of inspector general for financial records to justify more than $500 million in federal grants and tax credits the firms tapped for performing work…
    SolarCity, SunRun and Sungevity have been by far the largest recipients among companies installing solar panels on homes. Working heavily in the sunny states of California and Arizona, the three firms collected hundreds of millions of dollars in federal cash grants to pick up a share of their costs on thousands of home installations during the past three years.
    But the prices some of these industry leaders charged for their work were sometimes far higher than the broader industry’s market rate, according to solar experts and details of the Treasury investigation released in company reports. While firms can install solar panels for roughly $5 per watt of energy and make a comfortable profit, some firms were charging as much as $7 and $8 per watt…
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solar-firms-probed-for-misrepresentations-in-getting-public-money/2012/12/13/0ba07656-4496-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html

    i’d like 1 cent for every hundred dollars expended on solar advertising in recent years!


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    20 Dec: SMH: Peter Hannam: Call for cap on solar to limit power price rises
    Under current settings, the renewable energy target is projected to cost households between $12 and $64 extra a year…
    Electricity prices have become one of the hottest political issues as a mix of factors – ranging from excessive investment in infrastructure, and the carbon price – have sent bills soaring by as much as 50 per cent in three years, with more increases to come…
    The authority suggested a change to the definition of what counts as ”large-scale” to cover commercial-scale arrays of rooftop solar panels with a capacity greater than 10 kilowatts.
    The Climate Change Authority chairman, Bernie Fraser, a former Reserve Bank governor, said allowing commercial schemes to be included in the uncapped small-scale scheme could ”potentially be quite expensive”.
    The chief executive of the Australian Solar Council, John Grimes, attacked the recommended change, saying it would ”significantly undermine investor certainty and lead to business plans being ripped up”…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/call-for-cap-on-solar-to-limit-power-price-rises-20121219-2bnb0.html

    Britain delays decision to cap aviation, shipping CO2 until 2016
    LONDON, Dec 19 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The British government on Wednesday deferred a decision to include emissions from aviation and shipping in its carbon budgets until 2016, ignoring recommendations from a committee it appointed to help reduce greenhouse gas output…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2109023?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    50

  • #
  • #
    warcroft

    Suggestion…
    Perth need to heavily invest in carbon capture and storage. That way they can pump all the captured carbon dioxide under Perth to make the city rise again.
    As an added benefit, the streets will be like walking on pillows.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      debbie

      chuckle :-)
      Good one warcroft!
      That makes about as much sense as all the other current politically motivated solutions related to carbon pollution.
      Champion idea!
      You could apply for a grant to research this.
      Who wouldn’t want to walk around on streets like pillows?
      It could have some health benefits too….much less risk of joint injury if the streets are like pillows.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    debbie

    because of Spangled comments,
    I paid a visit to deltoid here:
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/12/12/sea-level-rise-acceleration/
    I would love to see some of the commenters here do something about the commenters there.
    They are so rude!
    Their ability to throw in ‘denialist’ at every slight opportunity is outstanding!


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Mark D.

      Deltoid? you went to Deltoid?

      The devil’s minions in hell would find most of the regulars there unfit and beneath the membership requirements.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Debbie

        Yep,
        didn’t comment but was gob smacked by how rude they are to people like spangled.
        Not planning to go back anytime soon.
        But would love to see some of the regulars here take them on.
        Very big on shooting messengers, very thin on actually engaging with evidence (other than the oft trotted out stat modelling).
        Main game is to argue semantics and make unfounded personal claims.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        Streetcred

        Damned auto correct thingy … “their”


        Report this

        30

    • #
      John Brookes

      They are very rude at deltoid. I love it!


      Report this

      04

      • #
        Debbie

        That’s an interesting comment JB?
        What does being rude accomplish?
        Certainly won’t do anything to assist future generations, including their manners.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    macha

    Sorry to be O/T, but hey – is MSM changing is theme?

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/ipcc-must-accept-temperature-rises-are-small-and-benign/story-fnay3ubk-1226540676611

    Some Aussie print-media that actually counters the AGW and IPCC propaganda?


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Angry

    More crap the red dog communist gillard has signed Australia up for !

    New UN Climate Ploy: Institutionalize Payments for Still-Unspecified ‘Loss and Damage’……………

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/19/new-un-climate-ploy-institutionalize-payments-for-still-unspecified-loss-and/?test=latestnews

    God help this country and our kids!


    Report this

    40

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    I’m an avid devourer of the knowledge punted out by RealClimate and SkepticalScience and believe every word that they say (Thanks folks)
    The problem, as I have gleaned after extensive studies, is that we have far, far too much Carbon Dioxide (that’ll burn us to a crisp) and an over-supply of water-in-waiting (ice) that threatens our beach-front, second homes when the melting-in-the-pipeline eventually overtakes ‘natural variations’ (if you believe such nonsense!) and rolls its sleeves up.
    The solution, to avert massive over-pricing of highland real-estate, is remarkably simple and I’m surprised to see no mention of it in the policy-guide of the impending IPPC report.
    Simples, strategically placed thermonuclear devices timed to detonate when prevailing wind and currents are towards equatorial latitudes will dislocate enormous amounts of ice from each of the poles that will then move towards areas where solar insolation is much greater than hitherto thus increasing the albedo of the oceans and radiating ‘excess’ energy to infinity and beyond.
    This is a win-win scenario. Not only will this reduce the energy budget of the planet but it will cool the oceans and thus allow for a greater concentration of CO2 to be absorbed (CCS for free and without any of those nasty Richter 1.5 EARTHQUAKES)
    Darn it folks. As Eric Steig,VP Al and et al have clearly demonstrated it’s going to melt anyway so let’s make the process work in our favour.
    At the risk of sounding smug, let me remind you that using nuclear is completely pollutant-free (zero Carbon Dioxide)
    I have calculated that this method is absolutely correct in all its details but, as I’m working on an even betterer solution, I’m exempt from vexatious FOIA legislations.
    (Unless you’re one of my mates)


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Brian of Moorabbin

    OT (and already posted in the Maurice Newman vs the ABC thread, but reposting here as it’s the active thread):

    Interestingly, it seems that whilst the ABC does not consider calling skeptics “paedophiles”, it appears that the Press Council has a different opinion.

    …. it has concluded that the report of the anonymous remarks concerning paedophilia, a very serious and odious crime, were highly offensive. The Council’s principles relate, of course, to whether something is acceptable journalistic practice, not whether it is unlawful. They are breached where, as in this case, the level of offensiveness is so high that it outweighs the very strong public interest in freedom of speech.

    However, before everyone starts to cheer, this decision apparently only applies to complaints laid about an article by James Delingpole (by a Mr Blair Donaldson) where a farmer made comments about ‘wind-turbine companies’ (vis)

    “The wind-farm business is bloody well near a pedophile ring. They’re f . . king our families and knowingly doing so.”

    This (linking wind-turbine companies with paedophile rings), according to the Press Council, is offensive. No word on whether the reverse (as uttered by Robyn Williams) that sceptics are akin to paedophiles is equally offensive according to the Press Council.

    However, given the precedant, one could certainly argue that Mr William’s comments are equally as offensive and therefore should be followed by a public apology by both the ABC and Mr Willaims himself.

    Not holding my breath waiting for that to happen though……..


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Angry

      I found the paedophile comment by robin “100 metres” williams to be highly offensive.

      Where do I sue him under gillards laws that make it illegal to cause offense ????????


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Angry

    OT but an interesting article on the CLOWN tim FLUMMERY (flannery)…..

    China gives lie to Flannery’s climate change fantasies:-

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/china-gives-lie-to-flannerys-climate-change-fantasies/story-e6frfig6-1226524498390


    Report this

    30

  • #
  • #
  • #

    [...] Nova, Australia’s climate-science dynamo, recently demolished the outlandish projections by climate alarmists that the city of Perth is in danger of being [...]


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Warwick Hughes

    CGPS based geodetic measurements at ten Pacific Ocean tide gauges show five are sinking, four steady and one rising 2001-2008
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1932


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Angry

    New paper finds sea levels were significantly higher during past interglacials…………

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/new-paper-finds-sea-levels-were.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Perth sea levels: Cherry-picking sea level rises in Perth (a city which happens to be sinking) “Gale Force” cherries coming your [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Nice One

    Two weeks ago, it was all over the news. The ocean near Perth (where I live) was rising at the terrifying rate of 9-10mm per year since 1993, which was, shockingly, “three times the global average”.

    Actually, if I wanted to “cherry pick”, I could point out that the GLOBAL sea level rise in the past two years has been 10 mm per year.

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

    But I admit, that would be cherry picking.

    The GLOBAL picture and short term variability was discussed here: http://skepticalscience.com/Earth-Encounters-Giant-Speed-Bump-on-the-Road-to-Higher-Sea-Level.html

    Sadly, despite Nova’s fixation on Perth, the GLOBAL picture still tracks at the upper end of IPCC estimates.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    propagandaradar

    The climate change gravy train, UN political speak rolls on and on with OUR $$$$$ !

    Article in Daily Telegraph 25th April 2013 by Ms Meredith Burgmann

    ‘Denial is difficult when the ocean is at your door’

    In regards to Kirabiti, did you know other coastlines, island and land masses have sunk beneath waves in human history, there was no UN then extorting money from those terrible westerners !

    So please DEMONSTRATE the FACTS of how the atmosphere is making Kiribati sink beneath the waves that you need to extort me by stealth and give me a lesson on ethics ?

    Please spare the politic speak if you can ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/21678805/kwinana-freeway-flood-fear/

    A November 2011 report by Main Roads found a 300mm rise in sea levels was possible by 2031 and would put 121km of WA highways and State roads at risk. lol

    I’m a bit confused , climate change is causing WA and most of Australia to dry out , we are running out of water but hang on we are going drown !!


    Report this

    00