JoNova

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


Handbooks

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



Archives

Sydney Sea levels rising at just 6.5cm per century. Peak-panic is behind us.

In The Australian Bob Carter compares the long term tide gauge record in Sydney with projections, and exposes the exorbitant cost of insurance for alarmist sea level forecasts. The good news is that it appears councils are waking up, and  “peak-sea-level-panic” is behind us.

Sea-level alarmism has passed high tide and is at last declining. With luck, empirical sanity will soon prevail over modelling.

After years of research it turns out that talking about “global”  sea level rise is nearly meaningless to real people who live in one place. The ocean rise varies locally from beach to beach from as little as 5cm per century to as much as 16cm per century. The variations are mostly due to different rates of land subsiding or rising.

More importantly, the rate of rise was either the same or was even faster before World War II when CO2 levels were “safe”.

Figure 5: Comparison of decadal rates of change over historical record. Analysis based on relative 20-y moving average water level time series. | Watson 2011

Fort Denison in Sydney has one of the longest running continuous records, starting in 1886, and finally local councils are realizing that they need to use the local data to plan ahead, not the IPCC’s one-size global fear index.

For example, measurements at Sydney between 2005 and 2014 show the tide gauge site is sinking at a rate of 0.49mm/yr, leaving just 0.16mm/yr of the overall relative rise as representing global sea-level change. Indeed, the rate of rise at Fort Denison, and globally, has been decreasing for the past 50 years.

Let’s cheer, Shoalhaven Shire Council shifted the sea-level-panic-index back a notch, rejecting the worst case IPCC scenario, settling for a slightly less scary one, and importantly, used the local Fort Denison record and ruled out “satellite or model-generated sea-level estimates until their accuracy is guaranteed”.

When councils plan for scenarios that never happen, the pointless insurance can cost some unlucky home owners tens of thousands — in one shire – $40,000 each.

Figures from RP Data property information specialists show that between 2011 and 2014, Eurobodalla property values suffered a 5.3 per cent loss in value compared with increases of 4.9 per cent and 7.3 per cent for neighbouring coastal shires that didn’t have equivalent restrictive sea-level policies. In the worst cases, individual properties have lost up to 52 per cent of their market value

In three years, individual Eurobodalla properties lost about $40,000 in value. With 22,000 properties in the shire, this represents a capital loss of $880m at a rate of $293m a year. This steady loss of rateable value means householders will face higher rate increases.

If you own a home near the sea, you might want to send this sort of  information to your councilors:

Queensland Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney recently notified Moreton Bay Regional Council of his intention to direct it to amend its draft planning scheme “to remove any assumption about a theoretical projected sea level rise due to climate change from all and any provisions of the scheme”. Seeney said his intention was to use a statewide coastal mapping scheme “that will remove the ‘one size fits all’ approach that incorporates a mandatory 0.8m addition to historical data”.

At last, a responsible government has recognised that global average sea-level change is no more relevant to coastal management than average global temperatures are to the design of residential heating and cooling systems — local weather and local sea-level change is what matters.

 

 

REFERENCE:

P. J. Watson (2011) Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia?. Journal of Coastal Research: Volume 27, Issue 2: pp. 368 – 377.  doi: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1 [Link Abstract PDF ]

White, Neil J., Haigh, Ivan D., Church, John A., Koen, Terry, Watson, Christopher S., Pritchard, Tim R., Watson, Phil J., Burgette, Reed J., McInnes, Kathleen L., You, Zai-Jin, Zhang, Xuebin, Tregoning, Paul: (2014) Australian Sea Levels – Trends, Regional Variability and Influencing Factors, Earth Science Reviews, doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.05.011

Other posts on Sea Levels.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.5/10 (92 votes cast)
Sydney Sea levels rising at just 6.5cm per century. Peak-panic is behind us., 8.5 out of 10 based on 92 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/l2nha4p

152 comments to Sydney Sea levels rising at just 6.5cm per century. Peak-panic is behind us.

  • #
    gbees

    This is a pretty good summary by Dr Gerrit J.van der Lingen of the sea level science.

    253

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Excellent summary.

      And it brings home the point that all change is relative to some arbitrary location (or area), at some point in time. That is what really matters in this debate.

      I have seen lots of papers that go into the theoretical considerations of sea level, based on gravitational forces, the density of the earths’ crust, the phase of the moon, the time of the year, et al, including the price of rice in China. And they all ignore the fact that it is the relative changes in sea level that are important.

      Focusing on the theoretical detail is a propaganda device that directs the reader away from considering how small some of these impacts are. Yes, the theory allows you to calculate the theoretical mean global sea level to n decimal places, but who really cares?

      152

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    “peak panic” Priceless.

    Sea level is not a problem. However, weather and big waves can be. Here in Washington State we once had a place called Cape Shoalwater. Now it is referred to as Washaway Beach. The North American coast is experiencing a large storm with lots of rain and big waves. Cape Shoalwater has lost land and houses for over 100 years. No panic. All knew it was coming.
    http://washawaybeach.com/index.html

    234

  • #
    King Geo

    “Sydney Sea levels rising at just 6.5cm per century”

    But in November 2009 Penny Wong, Minister for Climate Change & Water in the Rudd Govt, released a media statement that “Eustatic Sea Level” would rise by 1.1 metres by the year 2100 or 120cm per century – her hand picked Climate Advisors, the Climate Commission headed by Dr Tim Flannery, came to this conclusion applying their scientific expertise and of course consulting with other reliable sources e.g. the IPCC.

    Well 5 years later it seems that Miss Wong is very wong by a factor of 18.46 times. But to be fair to Miss Wong, a lawyer whose knowledge of Climate Science must have been close to zero when she was in charge of that portfolio, we must apply “Relative Sea Level” numbers for Sydney. This would lower this massive discrepancy somewhat because subsidence along that “Triassic Hawkesbury Sandstone” cliff dominated coastline is likely to be minimal if not slightly emergent. I acknowledge the SL chart above in Jo’s article but do recall some years back BOM had a figure of 1.9mm/year for Sydney in their website and 8.6mm/year for Perth – clearly there is more “subsidence” along the Perth “dune-dominated” coastline, if you believe this BOM data – it seems although that Fremantle has a lower figure (as shown in Jo’s article). I note that in general most BOM east coast relative SL numbers are quite low, ie no more than 2mm/year, probably because this is not a “rift margin” like most of the west coast. Subsidence and associated highest relative SL rise should occur in delta settings e.g. the Gascoyne River Delta, Carnarvon. I wonder if there is a SL gauge at this location?

    254

    • #
      Michael P

      If Penny Wong and others thought that the IPCC was a reliable source,I suggest that given this line of thinking Skeptical Science would be reliable as well,which given it’s record boggles the mind. And more importantly shows just how “wong” they were at the time.

      283

      • #
        john karajas

        Are you referring to former minister Penny W(r)ong of the “science is settled” fame. A truly class act!

        213

        • #

          Well, you’d better prepare for the worst. The way the Abbott government is stuffing it up it looks as though Wong and Co be back in control in 2016.

          Re local government and the losses the scare is causing to home owners, it would be interesting, perhaps telling, to know the names of those who have been buying up the discounted properties.

          61

  • #
    Mark D.

    The false scare of sea level rise in part was to move people away from coastal habitat.

    We all know from years of conditioning that the flora and fauna (not including homo sapiens) does much better with bare undeveloped coastlines.

    The net goal of compressing humans into dense metropolitan areas with lots of security sounds a lot like what a prison is.

    No that IS WHAT PRISON IS.

    Why does the number 21 come to mind………

    294

    • #
      LevelGaze

      The false scare of sea level rise in part was to move people away from coastal habitat.

      Yeah. So the carpetbaggers can move in.
      Think:
      Gore (serial offender)
      Flannery
      Gillard
      etc etc etc

      223

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        A place on the coast isn’t something that turns on just anyone. I’m more than willing to let the carpetbaggers have my share of coastal living if they want it.

        Sea level rise isn’t the only hazard. I’ve seen too much property damage and road flooding from storms as I drove the Pacific Coast Highway for 14 long years. I’ll be quite happy to be away from all that.

        Around here the fire danger is more than enough. And you don’t necessarily escape it near the beach.

        42

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          In fact, why not let the Al Gores of this world pay the high property tax that goes with that prime coastal real estate?

          62

  • #
  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Good news. Another occurrence of sanity following the PM actions on faux global warming. If I had scads of money like some of the loony leftists, I would take it out of the US (except for shale gas/oil) and put it in anything Australian until I got the best predictions ahead of the next election. If it looked like the leftists were going to retake the OZ parliament, then I would take it out immediately.
    Yes Mark, if your food, housing, clothes, shelter, medical care, and entertainment are all provided for “free” by the government, you are in prison. And that is just where the radical leftists want you.

    224

  • #
  • #
    • #
      Graeme No.3

      What disastrous news. At that rate it will take over 2700 years before Tim Flannery is submerged.

      424

    • #
      King Geo

      A 0.65mm/year relative SL rise at Fort Denison means that there is slight emergence at this location – global eustatic SL rise is ~ 2mm/year higher than this. So you are right that Flannery’s home, which I believe is to the north – ? on the Hawkesbury River – will not be submerged for an eternity. Spare a thought for those living at Carnarvon in WA where the Gascoyne River Delta will achieve submergence of a coastal residence considerably sooner than 2,700 years, that is assuming not too much delta shifting, which is the norm in many deltas e.g. the Mississippi Delta. Talking about 2.7 K in the future – won’t we be in the next Ice Age by then with eustatic SL falling not by cm’s or metres, but by tens of metres. The last Ice Age which finished ~ 11.7K ago resulted in eustatic SL ~ 130m lower than at present.

      143

      • #
        IainC

        Taking those figures one step further, the overall average rise in seal level, year in year out, over the last 11,700 years has therefore been 130,000 millimetres in 11,700 years or 11 mm per year. Which puts the current rates in their proper perspective.

        33

  • #
    Tim

    From the Guardian…

    Sea level rise over past century unmatched in 6,000 years, says study

    Guardian Australia: Research finds 20cm rise since start of 20th century, caused by global warming and the melting of polar ice, is unprecedented

    629

    • #
      the Griss

      Ahh…. is the Gruniad headquarters in Venice ?

      204

    • #
      the Griss

      lol,

      looks like we have a couple of stunned red thumbers..

      or is that .. stunned mullets !

      come out to play, little mindless ones….. if you can. :-)

      263

      • #
        cohenite

        I noticed that too; speak up sea rise alarmists and regale us with the torrent of facts and evidence which AGW believers have at their finger tips!

        313

        • #
          Byron

          I doubt they will speak up , these are the mysteries of the Church of cagw You’re talking about and as such , thet are not to be shared with unbelievers or heretics nor any tainted by scepticism nor those whose minds have been corrupted by the sight of raw data that has not been sanctified by adjustments

          233

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          The red thumb gremlin never speaks out. That would force the poor thing to put some words together consecutively so as to make a coherent thought and hopefully a point around which we might debate.

          Gremlins can’t do that, hence they don’t expose themselves. They’re strictly binary beings — approve or disapprove. There are no other possibilities.

          172

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Which 6000 years are they referring to?

      92

    • #

      But the doomsday sea rise predictions are becoming submerged by too
      many inconvenient facts like the inconvenient sea level benchmark at
      mean tide at The Isle of the Dead, in Tasmania and recorded testimony
      of the man who put it there, in 1841, Captain Sir James Clark Ross.

      Studies attempting to refute this evidence just don’t hold water.

      172

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Ive mentioned here a few times before Beth. I live just up the road from an old berthing in the Tamar that has a grounded ferry near it, dated 1820 something. The mooring bollards are still at perfect position to tie up a boat at high tide, like they were put there yesterday… go figure…

        10

  • #
    mmxx

    If this rate of rise is maintained (ignoring for a moment that the rate has declined in recent years) Robyn Williams the ABC’s Science Program presenter, who suggested a CAGW sea-level rise of 100m is possible, could be correct in 153,800 years.

    The Y2K scam had an obvious pre-defined deadline (01/01/2000) for its passage to absurdity. The CAGW scam has no such precise timeline. It certainly will pass to absurdity before the “Williams” deadline is reached.

    274

  • #
    pat

    ***not so, says the US Secretary of State!

    11 Dec: US Dept of State: John Kerry: Remarks on Climate Change at COP-20
    And I challenge anyone who has thought about the science or listened – actually listened carefully to national security experts tell us that these dangers are real – I challenge them to tell us otherwise and to show us otherwise. I might add that we have, as Todd mentioned, the distinguished former Vice President of the United States and Nobel Prize winner who was the leader with all of us on this issue, but the first among equals, believe me, in his passion and commitment to this. And I’ve often heard him reciting the numbers of studies and the amazing amount of evidence that has been tallied up versus the paucity of a few usually industry-paid-for false analyses that try to suggest otherwise…
    This morning, I woke up in Washington to the television news of a super-storm rainfall in California and Washington State – torrential, record-breaking rain in record-breaking short time. It’s become commonplace now to hear of record-breaking climate events. But this is 2014, 22 years later, and we’re still on a course leading to tragedy…
    Now I know it’s human nature at times to believe that mankind can somehow defy Mother Nature. But I think it is the plight of humanity that, in fact, we cannot…
    The science of climate change is science, and it is screaming at us, warning us, compelling us – hopefully – to act. Ninety-seven percent of peer- reviewed climate studies have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. And I’ve been involved, as many of you have, in public policy debates for a long time. It’s pretty rare to get a simple majority or a supermajority of studies to say the same thing, but 97 percent over 20-plus years – that is a dramatic statement of fact that no one of good conscience or good faith should be able to ignore…
    Without a greenhouse effect, life wouldn’t exist, and if the greenhouse effect is good enough to provide you with life itself, obviously, logic suggests that it’s also going to act like a greenhouse if you add more gases and they’re trapped and you heat up the earth. This is pretty logical stuff, and it’s astounding to me that even in the United States Senate and elsewhere, we have people who doubt it…
    Now you don’t need a Ph.D. to be able to see for yourself that the world is already changing. You just need to pay attention. Thirteen of the warmest years on record have occurred since 2000, with this year, again, on track to be the warmest of all. We’re getting used to every next year being the warmest year of all. It seems almost every year that happens now…
    ***For example, scientists predict that by the end of the century, the sea could rise a full meter. Now, I’ve had people who say to me a meter doesn’t sound like that much to some people, but let me tell you: when it comes to a rising sea, one meter would displace hundreds of millions of people worldwide, cost hundreds of billions of dollars in economic activity. It would put countless homes and schools and parks – entire cities and even countries – at risk…
    Now, of course industrialized countries have to play a major role in reducing emissions, but that doesn’t mean that other nations are just free to go off and repeat the mistakes of the past and that they somehow have a free pass to go to the levels that we’ve been at where we understand the danger…
    Coal and oil may be cheap ways to power an economy today in the near term, but I urge nations around the world – the vast majority of whom are represented here, at this conference – look further down the road. I urge you to consider the real, actual, far-reaching costs that come along with what some think is the cheaper alternative. It’s not cheaper…
    Add to that the other long-term-related problems that come from relying on 20th century energy sources and the fact that air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuel contributes to the deaths of at least 4.5 million people every year and all the attendant healthcare costs that go with it…
    And what we don’t hear enough of is the most important news of all, that climate change presents one of the greatest economic opportunities of all time on earth…
    Ask yourself, if Al Gore and Dr. Pachauri and Jim Hansen and the people who’ve been putting the science out there for years are wrong about this and we make these choices to do the things I’m talking about, what’s the worst thing that can happen to us for making these choices?…
    But what happens if the climate skeptics are wrong? Catastrophe. And we have a responsibility to put in place the precautionary principle when you’re given certain evidence and you’re a public official…
    The United States and China – two countries long regarded as the leaders of opposing camps in these negotiations – have now found common ground on this issue…
    http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/12/234969.htm

    take out the false claims, and what have you got?

    114

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      John Kerry – Nice Hair.

      Not much more you can say, really.

      193

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And I challenge anyone who has thought about the science or listened – actually listened carefully to national security experts tell us that these dangers are real – I challenge them to tell us otherwise and to show us otherwise. I might add that we have, as Todd mentioned, the distinguished former Vice President of the United States and Nobel Prize winner who was the leader with all of us on this issue, but the first among equals, believe me, in his passion and commitment to this. And I’ve often heard him reciting the numbers of studies and the amazing amount of evidence that has been tallied up versus the paucity of a few usually industry-paid-for false analyses that try to suggest otherwise…

      The Secretary of State wouldn’t know a climate change if it walked up and kissed him. The truth could walk up and kiss him and he wouldn’t know what that was either. Facts are what these Democrats imagine them to be. What can you expect when the president and the former speaker of the house both stand up and let themselves be recorded denying over and over again that they said what only a short few months before they let themselves be recorded saying. I’ve never seen Alice in Wonderland played out in real life before. But here it is.

      Passion and commitment are nice maybe. But what ever happened to honesty?

      192

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        ‘When I use a word’, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

        ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

        ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that is all.”

        This is the world we are living in, folks. Better get used to it.

        132

      • #
        Robert

        He’s still mad because we didn’t want him as our President. As you can see it is pretty obvious why he wasn’t elected. I suspect, along with the fact that he really isn’t very bright, he has to do what his masters tell him on the extremely slim chance they might let him run for President again.

        Not that we’d want him the next time either.

        20

    • #
      TdeF

      “Now you don’t need a Ph.D. to be able to see for yourself that the world is already changing.”

      The argument from authority which in his case seems more an argument from total ignorance. Obama as well. Tens of thousands of people with real science PhDs say CO2 driven Global Warming is not true, not least because warming is not happening, but somehow they don’t count? Is Kerry really this simple minded?

      51

      • #
        the Griss

        “Is Kerry really this simple minded?”

        YES !

        51

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Is Kerry really this simple minded?

        If he’s sharp enough to sail that big yacht he has without coming to grief with it then probably simple minded doesn’t apply. He’s very dysfunctional, an approval seeker and he’ll do and say what gets him approval. It’s a little more complicated than that because it has to be the approval of the group he identifies with, those defying entrenched rule and authority. Not any old approval will do. But he longs for approval. He’s your typical liberal fighting the “injustice” of common sense societal laws and morality.

        That what he does makes him look like a fool over and over doesn’t bother him in the slightest, any more than it bothers the president to do the same. Either they don’t see it or they rationalize it away by some logic I can’t begin to guess.

        It’s very pathological. And it’s a great tragedy playing out to the detriment of the whole world.

        20

  • #
    Jaymez

    Anyone who continues to claim that scientists would not be influenced to create certain outcomes in an order to participate in a funding gravy train and boost their standing should read this article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/university-of-queensland-professor-on-fraud-charges/5964476

    This all happened at the University of Queensland – the venue for President Obama’s recent speech on Climate Change to unquestioning support by the gullible audience of students and academic staff.

    Writing about University of Queensland professor Bruce Murdoch:

    A former University of Queensland (UQ) professor who falsified a breakthrough study on Parkinson’s disease has been charged with 16 fraud-related offences.

    …..the 64-year-old academic fabricated research findings and fraudulently applied for both public and private research funding while producing false reports on the progress of research.

    During his career Murdoch had more than 13 books and 380 peer-reviewed articles published.

    He was highly regarded by his peers and was a member of the editorial board of 10 international journals and an editorial consultant to 20 other international journals.

    Barwood, a former UQ speech pathologist who co-authored the Parkinson’s paper retracted by the European Journal of Neurology, has also been charged with six fraud offences.

    Both Murdoch and Barwood resigned last year after the university started investigating the case.

    University of Western Australia professor of law and criminology Mark Israel made the bleeding obvious comment:

    “If you really want to tackle research misconduct you still have to think about why researchers might be tempted to cut corners in the first place.”

    As we have always said – follow the money!

    262

    • #
      the Griss

      “follow the money!”

      Not only that, though..

      RECOGNITION by your peers is also a good driver.

      That, and the money, is why the CAGW meme ever gained any traction.

      212

      • #
        sophocles

        Recognition is a pretty powerful driver on its own. Piltdown Man succeeded pretty well for nearly two decades before final and irrefutable exposure. There wasn’t much money behind it.

        172

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      The 11th commandment in academia is,

      Thou shalt publish or perish.

      There is an expectation that you produce something and well educated students doesn’t fill that expectation. You can apparently do it by doing even the most obscure and useless research as long as you do it honestly and you can also apparently do it dishonestly as long as you aren’t caught or as long as you stick to climate change research.

      I don’t know what anyone else thinks but I think the publish or perish environment accounts for more of the abuse than anything else. If you can achieve recognition among your peers then more funding flows into your efforts and you can get lucrative speaking engagements. But most college professors are certainly not getting rich, not even the ones with the bloated salaries. Money may be one of the drivers but academic survival is the real imperative. Don’t publish any research equals loss of respect and no more job.

      82

      • #
        Dariusz

        Working as a geologist in the private sector of the petroleum industry I always came across government equivalents looking for projects and publishing. Despite numerous opportunities I usually decline because I am too busy, information is often too sensitive and I don,t want to part uncessarily with my IP that I have work so hard all my career. Other reason is that I don, t want to be associated with often 4th grade scientists. Sounds terrible but it is true judging by poor track record of organisations like GA or CSIRO.
        Yes I have published a fare share of papers but not for glory or the 11th commandment. I do that to simplify my professional life and stop repeating myself. During my presentions I just refer to papers to read and if any further questions I am more than happy to answer them.

        182

    • #
      Allen Ford

      Ah, the Uni of Qld, that bastion of academic excellence, like unto that other one the Uni of WA, that produced this and this.

      Follow the links and weep!

      21

    • #
      Robert

      He was highly regarded by his peers and was a member of the editorial board of 10 international journals and an editorial consultant to 20 other international journals.

      So he passed peer review then.

      20

    • #
      MacSual

      There was a time when a man could say that he was a minister of religion and people would look up to him with respect ,now if he was to say that people would automatically think kiddy fiddler and perv.
      Scientists have worked their way down in society’s eyes,well in my eyes at least.

      A prime example was Homo floresiensis ,the Australian scientists couldn’t get back to Oz fast enough to shout what they had found,but back in the real world on the island of Flores the locals could point out to anyone who bothered to ask where the local pygmies were living,but as per usual enough local scientists got on board(can’t upset the gravy train) and peer reviewed it as gooooood.
      It’s funny that the Indonesian anthropologists didn’t come to the party,but hey as everyone knows white is right!

      10

  • #
    Richo

    The BOM only has 16 stations including the Cocos Islands to monitor sea levels which is clearly inadequate considering the length of the Australian coastline.

    92

  • #
    pat

    a Marcus Priest piece that doesn’t appear to have been picked up by Fairfax. wonder why?

    11 Dec: Crikey: Little progress in Lima, inside or outside the barricades
    Delegates gather in a well-off district to spend hours parsing language on climate change agreements, while protesters outside shout slogans. Neither side is accomplishing much, writes journalist Marcus Priest in Lima.
    The current conference of parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is a bubble within a compound within a world cut off from its surrounds…
    The site of the UNFCCC meeting in Lima is a tent city in a compound in the General Headquarters of the Army, guarded by a large number of police and soldiers. At its heart is a huge concrete monolith — “Pentagonito”, or Little Pentagon — a reminder of Peru’s past military dictatorship.
    Around the outside of the compound is a running track on which wealthy Peruvians can be seen running laps, stopping occasionally to stretch and flex — just like you would see at Centennial Park in Sydney or Central Park in New York. This running track sits within the wealthy Lima suburb of San Borja…
    Environmental groups — known euphemistically as Civil Society — wanted to make Typhoon Hagupit, set to hit the Philippines, a focal point for their efforts at this year’s meeting in an attempt to concentrate delegates’ minds on the pressing issue at hand…
    But this year environmental and human rights groups’ obsession with the impending typhoon has bordered on disaster fetishism. In the days leading up to the landfall of the typhoon, there has been something of a histrionic countdown to disaster. Every pronouncement, every media release, every press conference is prefaced with the calamities about to befall the Philippines.
    This week at one press conference, Greenpeace showed an emotive video featuring its CEO Kumi Naidoo, who diverted his trip to Lima to review the preparations in the Philippines for the hurricane.
    “I would like to make an appeal to our brothers and sisters in Lima,“ Naidoo said. “We are losing time and running out of time and people are hurting now.”…
    Such extreme weather events are predicted to become more frequent in the future. But it is questionable whether such a strategy of relentless climate crisis campaigning based on disasters that are nonetheless natural weather events is productive.
    The one-dimensional campaign strategy was best typified by the chants of protesters against a speech on Monday by English economist Lord Nicholas Stern, who was speaking at an industry-sponsored side event.
    “Leave the oil in the soil. Coal in the hole,” chanted protesters.
    The outcome of the Lima talks is unlikely to be sufficient to deal with the challenge of climate change — but then, rhyming slogans from environmental groups won’t either.
    http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/12/11/little-progress-in-lima-inside-or-outside-the-barricades/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

    92

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘…it is questionable whether such a strategy of relentless climate crisis campaigning based on disasters that are nonetheless natural weather events is productive.’

      It would be productive if we could argue that its only natural weather, but overwhelmed by ‘disaster fetishism’ its unlikely that our voices will be heard above the clamor.

      62

      • #
        MacSual

        With the journalistic and scientific world chasing after superlatives,each and every disaster storm tsunami etc is worse bigger stronger than the last,which must be a bit of a downer for then when the strongest most powerful typhoon hurricane storm etc gets downgraded to a tropical storm !
        You would think that mother earth/Gaia would get with the program,after all these people are her/it’s faithful worshippers.

        20

    • #
      john karajas

      “Leave the oil in the soil, coal in the hole.” Zowie! Sounds like it will become the permanent mantra for the Balmain Basket Weaving Eco-Collective.

      92

  • #
    pat

    BBC’s Matt McGrath finally decides to report some facts from Lima:

    12 Dec: BBC: Matt McGrath: Lima climate talks: Old divisions surface between rich and poor
    Climate talks in Lima have entered their final day with long-running issues still dividing the parties, despite an impassioned appeal from US Secretary of State John Kerry…
    But this approach is being resisted by a number of countries, including China and many others, who want (to) adhere to the idea of “common but differentiated responsibilities”.
    Some countries are suspicious that the text being developed here in Lima is an attempt to get round the concept of differentiation, which is embedded in 1992′s UN framework convention on climate change.
    The issue has become critical as the chairs of the talks introduced a new draft text that many felt watered down the original commitment.
    A large group of developing nations known as the G77 objected.
    “This whole exercise is not meant to rewrite the convention, this is a firm basic position of the G77,” said Antonio Marcondes, Brazil’s representative at the talks.
    “We stand behind the differentiation, we stand behind ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’, these are issues we hold very strong and these are definite red lines.”
    Another key battle was over the initial commitments that countries are expected to make by the end of March next year.
    Known in the jargon of the UN talks as the “intended nationally determined contributions” or INDCs, rich and poor are still divided over what should be part of this package.
    The developed want to restrict them to carbon cuts. The developing want them to include finance for adaptation…
    A further argument is over the idea that there must be some sort of review process before a new deal is signed…
    But developing countries including India are dead set against it.
    They say it is an issue of sovereignty. Outside parties, they argue, should not have the power to review what countries commit to by themselves…
    These divisions are all variants of long-running splits between richer and poorer nations that have existed in the UN talks for 20 years…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30443919

    72

  • #
    pat

    11 Dec: USGS: NASA-USGS Climate Data App Challenge: An Invitation for Innovation
    NASA in partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is offering more than $35,000 in prizes to citizen scientists for ideas that make use of climate data to address vulnerabilities faced by the United States in coping with climate change.
    The Climate Resilience Data Challenge, conducted through the NASA Tournament Lab, a partnership with Harvard University hosted on Appirio/Topcoder, kicks off Monday, Dec. 15 and runs through March 2015…
    “Federal agencies, such as NASA and the USGS, traditionally focus on developing world-class science data to support scientific research, but the rapid growth in the innovation community presents new opportunities to encourage wider usage and application of science data to benefit society,” said Kevin Murphy, NASA program executive for Earth Science Data Systems in Washington. “We need tools that utilize federal data to help our local communities improve climate resilience, protect our ecosystems, and prepare for the effects of climate change.”
    “Government science follows the strictest professional protocols because scientific objectivity is what the American people expect from us,” said Virginia Burkett, acting USGS associate director for Climate Change and Land Use. “That systematic approach is fundamental to our mission. With this challenge, however, we are intentionally looking outside the box for transformational ways to apply the data that we have already carefully assembled for the benefit of communities across the nation.”..
    http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=4072

    62

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      NASA in partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is offering more than $35,000 in prizes to citizen scientists for ideas that make use of climate data to address vulnerabilities faced by the United States in coping with climate change.

      I guess I can claim that prize right away then because all we need to do to address climate change problems is forget about climate change and throw all the data in the nearest shredder.

      See! I was a citizen scientist all along and you didn’t even recognize my superior talent. :-)

      152

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    …and finally local councils are realizing that they need to use the local data to plan ahead, not the IPCC’s one-size global fear index.

    If this is a dumb question someone please let me know. But with sea level changes on the order of a couple of mm or less per century, why do local councils — or anyone else — have any planning to do at all? It’s a non problem. It’s comparable to worrying about an invasion of little green men from Mars. Why spend time on it?

    163

    • #

      … invasion of little green men

      Yes. I upset one of our local LGM because I managed to get a report onto Jeff Seeney’s desk that debunked the 0.8m rise mentioned by Jo above. Seems to have worked.
      The answer to the question is that until recently, flood heights and related issues eg minimum habitable floor levels relied on local knowledge and needed to be set locally, so was vulnerable to IPCC scaremongering.
      Statewide flood mapping has improved enormously in the past few years. Inevitably still low resolution, but in my area at least is now viewable at about 10 x 10m, and for the first time in 20+ years is starting to make sense.
      Up here in Queensland I think it helps that out of 44 permanent operational tide gauges, only two belong to BoM. The rest are run by port authorities, maritime safety, DERM (state natural resources).

      152

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I understand flood control and risk management.

        It’s the risk management of non problems I don’t get.

        I’m glad you got your point across.

        102

      • #
        the Griss

        “Up here in Queensland I think it helps that out of 44 permanent operational tide gauges”

        It would be interesting to see what those tide gauges have to say. :-)

        62

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I wonder what our red thumb gremlin is being paid by someone to diss everyone who made a comment they don’t like. I guess they haven’t figured out yet that these days I keep hoping to attract them so I know that what I said hit the right nerve.

    142

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I think it is puberty thing.

      112

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I can’t speak for anyone else and certainly not for the red thumb bomber. But you can believe me, at puberty I wasn’t thinking about red thumbs. ;-)

        10

    • #
      Sweet Old Bob

      And half of them have already gone….
      “Yes , mommy ,I’m in bed…..nighty-nighty mommy “

      71

    • #
      Robert

      Considering the skill level and quality of the trolls these days has dropped dramatically from what it was a few years ago it is no surprise.

      We used to see some that were almost a challenge to deal with. Dealing with the current crop is like watching them show up thinking it’s a knife fight while you just drop a mortar round on their position and get it over with. Since they get thrashed so consistently what else is left for them but to hide behind red thumbs in silence? Though they do remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail.

      20

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    The sky is falling at an average of 32mm per decade, an increase of 17mm per decade since 1950. But don’t worry, that’s just the global average. Local variations show up in the distance between the top of the ocean and the bottom of the sky, commonly referred to by non-scientists as ‘sea level’.

    173

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    >”Let’s cheer, Shoalhaven Shire Council shifted the sea-level-panic-index back a notch, rejecting the worst case IPCC scenario……..”

    ‘Commentary and Analysis on the Whitehead & Associates 2014 NSW Sea-Level Report’

    by Carter R.M., de Lange W., Hansen, J.M., Humlum O., Idso C., Kear, D., Legates, D., Mörner, N.A., Ollier C., Singer F. & Soon W.

    NIPCC, September 24, 2014

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NIPCC_Report_on_NSW_Coastal_SL_-_9z_%28final%29_%281%29_%281%29.pdf

    1. Introduction

    “The issue of sea-level change, and in particular the identification of a speculative human contribution to that change, is a complex topic. Given the scientific and political controversy that surrounds the matter, the Eurobodalla and Shoalhaven Councils are to be congratulated for seeking fresh advice on the topic.

    112

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Carter et al (2014):

      3. Deficiency of adopting IPCC emissions scenario RCP 8.5 as a basis for planning

      W&A recommend that for planning purposes Councils should adopt the highest of the three calculated RCP8.5 options, which translate to low, medium and high projections of NSW local sea level rise by 2050 of 16cm, 20cm and 26cm (W&A, Table 12).”

      http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/Changing-Climate-and-Rising-Seas-Web.pdf

      Meanwhile, over in the Land of the Long White Cloud Wool being pulled over everyone’s eyes:

      ‘Changing climate and rising seas: Understanding the science’
      Dr Jan Wright, NZ Commissioner for the Environment, November 2014:

      5. In Conclusion

      “In its latest report, the IPCC predicts that sea levels will rise by a further 20 to 40 centimetres by the middle of this century.[2050] This increase is ‘locked in’ – it is forecast under all IPCC scenarios.87 New Zealand, like other countries, needs to adapt.”

      Wright omitted to make clear that IPCC projections are from 1990 which led the media to write headlines with the implication that the predicted rise would be from 2014 i.e. Wright inadvertently included 2.4 decades of natural rise that has elapsed which for Wellington Harbour works out at 6cm i.e.a total implied rise of 36cm from 1990 by 2050. Or maybe that’s what she means because below there’s a report that includes that scenario. We’re not sure yet which is the correct inference.

      The Wellington City Council (WCC) commissioned a report from consultants Tonkin & Taylor (T&T) that explicitly stated that they made no attempt to ascertain historical rate of rise. Odd because the data is readily available at PSMSL and at NOAA Tides and Currents the trend is already given as 24.5cm/century historical (Sydney 6.5cm/century):

      Sea Level Trends (interactive global map)
      http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

      So what rates did T&T take from the IPCC for WCC instead?

      Wellington City Council
      ‘Sea Level Rise Options Analysis’
      Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, June 2013

      Table A: City-wide impacts of sea level rise for Scenarios 1 and 2 [1990 - 2100]

      Scenario 1 (0.6 m sea level rise) [36cm by 2050]
      Assets affected $0.4bn
      Residents potentially displaced ~150
      Area of environmental significance affected ~60 ha
      Cultural sites affected ~30

      Scenario 2 (1.5 m sea level rise) [90cm by 2050]
      Assets affected $6.5bn
      Residents potentially displaced ~2,000
      Area of environmental significance affected ~100 ha
      Cultural sites affected ~120

      http://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/services/environment-and-waste/environment/files/61579-wcc-sea-level-rise-options.pdf

      Wellington of course, being situated on a seismic faultline, has a much greater risk than SLR to keep in mind. And no-one seems to have noticed the historical SLR anyway.

      At Climate Conversation Group, we’re in the process of putting up a post that will include the above reports and a graph of Jan Wright’s prediction compared to the Wellington Harbour PSMSL historical data and trend. Should be interesting, keep an eye out for a ping-back to this post at JoNova perhaps.

      41

    • #
      Belfast

      No cheering yet.
      The shoalhaven council staff are trying to bring the matter up again and threatening the Councillors that they may be personally responsible for damages if they are wrong.
      If they don’t like a decision they try to reverse it.

      10

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Interesting Belfast – a space to watch obviously.

        But equally, will the IPCC collectively be held personally responsible for damages if they are wrong?

        And that’s not just for costs accrued by exorbitant SLR projections:

        ‘Billions won’t satisfy warmists’

        Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 7 December 2014

        “….so carried away are the warmists by their quasi-religious belief system that, when it was again proposed in Lima that richer nations should pay poor countries $100 billion a year to protect them from runaway global warming, the UN’s chief spokesman, Christiana Figueres, dismissed this as “a very, very small sum”. What is needed to decarbonise the global economy, she said, is “$90 trillion over the next 15 years”.”

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11277024/Billions-wont-satisfy-warmists.html

        Who’s shoes would you rather be in in the event of badly wrong predictions that were acted on under the principle that the respective authority should be held personally accountable?

        a) Shoalhaven Council
        b) IPCC WG’s !, II, and III

        Don’t forget that the present Shoalhaven Council decision accounts for SL rise at the historical rate so the “badly wrong” factor is the difference between the historical and IPCC rates.

        10

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          >b) IPCC WG’s !, II, and III

          That should really be:

          b) UN (Ban Ki-moon), UN FCCC (Christiana Figueres), UN IPCC (Staffers), UN WG’s !, II, and III (Non-UN employed contributors)

          10

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    AN ACT TO STUDY AND MODIFY CERTAIN COASTAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES.

    GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011
    HOUSE BILL 819
    RATIFIED BILL *H819-v-5* [passed 2012, effective to July 2016]

    The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

    SECTION 2.(a) Article 7 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:

    Ҥ 113A-107.1. Sea-level policy.
    (a) The General Assembly does not intend to mandate the development of sea-level policy or the definition of rates of sea-level change for regulatory purposes.
    (b) No rule, policy, or planning guideline that defines a rate of sea-level change for regulatory purposes shall be adopted except as provided by this section.
    (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a county, municipality, or other local government entity from defining rates of sea-level change for regulatory purposes.
    (d) All policies, rules, regulations, or any other product of the Commission or the Division related to rates of sea-level change shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes.
    (e) The Commission shall be the only State agency authorized to define rates of sea-level change for regulatory purposes. If the Commission defines rates of sea-level change for regulatory purposes, it shall do so in conjunction with the Division of Coastal Management of the Department. The Commission and Division may collaborate with other State agencies, boards, and commissions; other public entities; and other institutions when defining rates of sea-level change.”

    SECTION 2.(b) The Coastal Resources Commission and the Division of Coastal Management of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall not define rates of sea-level change for regulatory purposes prior to July 1, 2016.

    SECTION 2.(c) The Coastal Resources Commission shall direct its Science Panel to deliver its five-year updated assessment to its March 2010 report entitled “North Carolina Sea Level Rise Assessment Report” to the Commission no later than March 31, 2015. The Commission shall direct the Science Panel to include in its five-year updated assessment a comprehensive review and summary of peer-reviewed scientific literature that address the full range of global, regional, and North Carolina-specific sea-level change data and hypotheses, including sea-level fall, no movement in sea level, deceleration of sea-level rise, and acceleration of sea-level rise. When summarizing research dealing with sea level, the Commission and the Science Panel shall define the assumptions and limitations of predictive modeling used to predict future sea-level scenarios. The Commission shall make this report available to the general public and allow for submittal of public comments including a public hearing at the first regularly scheduled meeting after March 31, 2015. Prior to and upon receipt of this report, the Commission shall study the economic and environmental costs and benefits to the North Carolina coastal region of developing, or not developing, sea-level regulations and policies. The Commission shall also compare the determination of sea level based on historical calculations versus predictive models. The Commission shall also address the consideration of oceanfront and estuarine shorelines for dealing with sea-level assessment and not use one single sea-level rate for the entire coast. For oceanfront shorelines, the Commission shall use no fewer than the four regions defined in the April 2011 report entitled “North Carolina Beach and Inlet Management Plan” published by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. In regions that may lack statistically significant data, rates from adjacent regions may be considered and modified using generally accepted scientific and statistical techniques to account for relevant geologic and hydrologic processes. The Commission shall present a draft of this report, which shall also include the Commission’s Science Panel five-year assessment update, to the general public and receive comments from interested parties no later than December 31, 2015, and present these reports, including public comments and any policies the Commission has adopted or may be considering that address sea-level policies, to the General Assembly Environmental Review Commission no later than March 1, 2016.

    http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H819v5.pdf

    >”The Commission shall also compare the determination of sea level based on historical calculations versus predictive models.”

    ‘North Carolina Sea-Level Rise Assessment Report’
    March 2010

    Figure 2. This chart illustrates the magnitude of SLR resulting from differing rates of acceleration. The most likely [GHG] scenario for 2100 AD is a rise of 0.4 meter to 1.4 meters (15 inches to 55 inches) above present.

    http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=724b16de-ef9f-4487-bddf-e1cb20e79ea0&groupId=38319

    ‘A Controversial Law Is Threatening The Future Of Coastal North Carolina Communities’

    Chelsea Harvey Yesterday at 8:27 AM

    The law places three major limitations on the way North Carolina can prepare for the effects of climate change, at least for another two years:

    1. It bans state policy-makers from using the most scientifically accepted sea-level projections in their decisions.

    2. In their place, it promotes a climate prediction method most scientists regard as grossly inaccurate — those based only on historical data, not future projections based on the amount of greenhouse gases that have been released.

    3. It limits the next state-sponsored report to only analysing what will happen during the next 30 years, severely limiting its scope and usefulness for long-term decision making and planning.

    [Reproduces Figure 2]

    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/north-carolina-state-hiding-climate-science-2014-12

    # # #

    I don’t know where “limits the next state-sponsored report to only analysing what will happen during the next 30 years” comes from, possibly the Management Plan.

    Entirely sensible, seems to me.

    52

  • #
    handjive

    Tony Abbott.

    The World’s Biggest Climate Villain Just Agreed to Help Fight Global Warming
    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/australia-abbott-green-climate-fund-politics-koala

    Congratulations Tony Abbott.

    Like Gillard, when she contributed $700m to the UN-IPCC, you now own the UN-IPCC science.
    And, just like Gillard, you are now the target of what you call “deniers”.

    That is lot of enemies in one foul swoop.

    $200m- @$50m per year for next 4 years ensures the UN-IPCC gravy train continues.

    Your treasurer is about to’sell’ his mid-year Budget update, complete with austerity cuts for Australian tax-payers.

    Obviously foreign-aid has a lot of spare money, and ‘charity starts at home’ …

    Good luck selling the budget update, though ‘sell-outs’ isn’t the same as ‘selling’ as you are about to find out.

    Like it was for Gillard; no one is listening anymore. 2 years to go …

    142

  • #
    TdeF

    What ever was the argument for Man Made Sea Level rise? Has no one heard of the ice age a mere 20,000 years ago, when glaciers covered the earth above 40 degrees? Surely that is the problem, not CO2? No, somehow Global Warming which was supposed to heat the air catastrophically is supposed to be making the seas suddenly much higher. The problem in Scandinavia is the the land is rising much faster than the ocean!

    The seas on average are 3.4km deep and the weight of the air is one atmosphere for every 10 metres, so the seas are 340x the mass of the atmosphere. Now whatever might heat the air is reduced x340 and no real effect is expected passing heat from an atmosphere which has not changed in temperature in nearly 20 years anyway.

    So the myth of Man Made sea rise is pushed without any science at all. Man Made Acidification of the oceans is a lie, when the oceans are basic can never be acidic. 98% of all aerial CO2, 50 x as much is already in the oceans. Proving that these things are not true is unnecessary because the people saying this do not believe it either.

    Then how old is your house? Very few houses in the world are 100 years old, but we worry about our cities. Why? Coastlines move constantly. When have councils cared before what the coastline will be in 100 years? Isn’t that absurd? Isn’t that the house owners’ risk, as in Southern California where cliff top mansions on sand cliffs regularly tumble into the sea and not a lawyer to be seen? Where were the lawyers when half of New Orleans drowned, built below sea level and in an area that suddenly subsided 1 metre in the year before Katrina hit? No lawyers? No class action?

    This business of preventing people living near dangerous coasts is not applied to the half of Bangladeshis who live on land only one metre above sea level on the Bay of Bengal. The last tidal wave went west, not North or 30 million would have drowned. Apparently Greens only worry about themselves and the fewer people on the planet, the better. Caring types.

    No, it is all high farce, an Agenda 21 pushed by regional council Green activists so they can earn their tickets to Paris. That Tim Flannery enjoys his beach house and pushes this line is laughable. Did the price drop before he bought? Then you have Al Gore’s water front apartment in San Francisco. Did King Canute teach us nothing about man’s control over the oceans?

    82

  • #
    Neville

    Of course the sea level at Fort Denison was at least 1.5 metres higher just 4,000 years ago.
    Also there are at least 30 recent studies that show the rate of rise of global SL has not increased since 1950 and many studies show a deceleration in recent years.
    Also the Leclercq et al world glacier study also shows a slowing of retreat since 1950 as well.
    So where is this impact from increased co2 emissions? Seems to have gone AWOL.

    72

  • #
    Kon Dealer

    John Kerry is much like al Gore.
    They are both jizzweasels.

    51

  • #
    handjive

    What does UN-IPCC settled science say?

    State of the Climate 2014: CSIRO/BoM

    Rates of sea-level rise vary around the Australian region, with higher sea-level rise observed in the north and rates similar to the global average observed in the south and east.

    Global sea level fell during the intense La Niña event of 2010–2011.

    This was ascribed partly to the exceptionally high rainfall over land which resulted in floods in Australia, northern South America, and Southeast Asia.

    Recent observations show that sea levels have rebounded in line with the long-term trend.

    State of the Climate 2014: CSIRO/BoM

    http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-Climate-2014/Oceans.aspx

    31

  • #
    Peter C

    I don’t think that the tide gauge measurements from the four sites; Fremantle, Auckland, Newcastle and Fort Denison show any convincing evidence of Sea level rises over the past century.

    They have all gone up at times and down at times. The sites with the most unstable coastal geology (Auckland and Fremantle) show the most variability. The range of variability is insignificant compared to other processes such as coastal erosion and silting up.

    61

  • #
    pat

    check the renderings of the waterfront property on offer for the Presidential Library. surely President Obama will have to turn down this proposal after Kerry’s Lima speech re sea level rise yesterday:

    12 Dec: Daily Mail: Khaleda Rahman: Will Obama’s presidential library be on the beach? New plans reveal proposal for Hawaii with view of a volcano Proposed spot is on shoreline between Waikiki and downtown Honolulu
    U.S. Senator Brian Schatz says: ‘You can’t beat waterfront land in Honolulu’
    PHOTO CAPTION: An artist rendering shows one of the proposals for a Barack Obama presidential library on a Hawaiian beach
    PHOTO CAPTION: An artists rendering shows an aerial view of one of the proposals, which features large, open spaces to take advantage of the state’s abundant sunshine
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2870739/Hawaii-envisions-presidential-library-beach.html

    methinks PM Modi has a sense of humour:

    12 Dec: BBC: Can yoga solve climate change?
    The UN has adopted a resolution declaring June 21st as the International Yoga Day.
    The idea was put forward by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his UN speech, calling yoga India’s gift to the world and suggesting the spiritual aspects of Yoga can provide a solution to climate change.
    But what do yoga enthusiasts think of the idea?
    The BBC’s Brajesh Upadhyay reports from New York, also called the yoga capital of the US…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30438566

    31

  • #
    Ian Cooper

    Back in June ’91 I visited the Oregon coast at Lincoln City. Walking along the glassy sand beach my host showed dozens of apartments worth hundreds of thousands of dollars perched precariously on sandy cliffs with some of the most pathetic erosion protection that you’ve ever seen, put in at little cost by the owners BTW. Coming from a civil engineering background I couldn’t believe that people really thought that the flimsy wooden structures would keep storm surges from eroding the sand piles they called cliffs! Back then the biggest fear was the return of another monster El Nino season (there had been plenty of damage all along the west coast of the U.S. just a few years earlier). No mention of the threat of CAGW. All around the world a lot of coast dwellers problems come from not paying attention to local conditions & history. Councils that also ignore those two factors and use the IPCC global figures should be voted out.

    31

  • #
    pat

    13 Dec: SMH: Marcus Priest: Lima climate talks: tough decisions deferred as UN meeting winds up
    The scramble came as the Abbott Government was accused of “creative accounting” in the way it reported emissions from land clearing and forestry in a new study by the Potsdam Institute…
    Australia also came under fire from the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, which said it found Australia’s position in the negotiations “perplexing”…
    Late on Thursday night, a new draft minimalist agreement was released that slashed the number of pages to eight after it ballooned to more than 60 earlier in the week..
    For the first time since 1992 there may now be no reference in a decision taken by the conference to “differentiation” between developing and developed nations, which was hard-wired into the United Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to in that year.
    Removal of this division has been a key demand by the United States and Australia but its omission has angered the least developed countries.
    Much of the detail around the contentious issue of finance for developing countries has also been left out…
    (FOLLOWED BY 11 PARAS CRITICISING AUSTRALIA)
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/lima-climate-talks-tough-decisions-deferred-as-un-meeting-winds-up-20141212-126dso.html

    another perspective:

    12 Dec: BBC: Matt McGrath: Lima climate talks: Final push amid ongoing divisions
    Talks have continued past the official close of business on the final day of a key UN climate summit in Peru aimed at advancing a new global treaty…
    ‘Red lines’
    A new text has been produced by the chairman of the talks in an effort to get a decision.
    But environmental groups say that it is far too weak and threatens to leave many issues unresolved…
    In his speech, Mr Kerry said no country should have a “free pass”.
    “I know this is difficult for developing nations. We have to remember that today more than half of emissions are coming from developing nations, so it is imperative that they act too.”
    But this approach is being resisted by a number of countries, including China and many others, who want to adhere to the idea of “common but differentiated responsibilities”….
    The issue has become critical as the chairs of the talks introduced a new draft text that many felt watered down the original commitment.
    A large group of developing nations known as the G77 objected.
    “This whole exercise is not meant to rewrite the convention, this is a firm basic position of the G77,” said Antonio Marcondes, Brazil’s representative at the talks…
    “We stand behind the differentiation, we stand behind ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’, these are issues we hold very strong and these are definite red lines.”…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30443919

    31

  • #
    pat

    12 Dec: Guardian: Suzanne Goldenberg: Lima climate summit extended as poor countries demand more from rich
    Talks stumble amid rising frustration over ‘ridiculously low’ cash commitments offered by rich nations to help pay for emissions cuts
    (NO PRIZE FOR GUESSING WHO ISN’T IN THE PIC) PHOTO CAPTION: Leaders of rich nations have been lampooned by environment activists at the Lima talks, but developing countries are also frustrated by their apparent lack of commitment. Photograph: Eitan Abramovich/AFP/Getty Images

    Climate talks in Lima ran into extra time amid rising frustration from developing countries at the “ridiculously low” commitments from rich countries to help pay for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
    The talks – originally scheduled to wrap up at 12pm after 10 days – are now expected to run well into Saturday , as negotiators huddle over a new draft text many glimpsed for the first time only morning…
    By midweek, a little over $10bn had been raised for a green climate fund, intended to help poor countries invest in clean energy technology. That was below the initial target of $15bn and many of those funds will be distributed over several years.
    It was also unclear how industrialised countries could be held to an earlier promise to mobilise $100bn a year for climate finance by 2020, negotiators from developing countries said. “We are disappointed,” said India’s Prakash Javadekar. “It is ridiculous. It is ridiculously low.” Javadekar said the pledges to the green climate fund amounted to backsliding.

    ***“We are upset that 2011, 2012, 2013 – three consecutive years – the developed world provided $10bn each year for climate action support to the developing world, but now they have reduced it. Now they are saying $10bn is for four years, so it is $2.5bn,” he said…

    Ahmed Sareer, the Maldivian negotiator who is about to take over the leadership of the Alliance of Small Island States: “How many CoPs will it take for us to really see any tangible results? We have been going from CoP to CoP and every time we are given so many assurances, and expectations are raised, but the gaps are getting wider,” he said.
    “There has been a clear commitment of $100bn a year but how are we really being offered? Even when they make those pledges how do we know how much is going to materialise? There is no point of knowing that behind the wall there is a big source of funds available unless we can reach it,” he said.
    “We are told it is there in a nice show case, but we don’t get to meet it. We don’t get to access it. These are difficult issues for us.”…
    The seven-page draft text under discussion so far remains in a very raw state, with negotiators asked to choose between three options on virtually every major issue of contention.
    But the multiple-choice format makes it evident that the old fault lines between rich and poor countries remain…
    Rich countries, including the US, only want to commit to carbon cuts. Developing countries want those commitments to include finance for climate adaptation.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/12/lima-climate-change-talks-stumble-cash-emissions-cuts

    ***when ABC/Fairfax/Guardian promoted the US $3bn, or the Climate Fund reaching $10bn, did they or any other MSM point out this meant a reduction from $10bn/yr to $2.5bn/yr? no.

    time to call the whole scam off.

    71

    • #

      I just want to show you just how utterly laughable this whole thing is about the money being donated to this UN climate fund.

      By midweek, a little over $10bn had been raised for a green climate fund, intended to help poor countries invest in clean energy technology.

      Let’s pretend for just one fleeting second that in the infinite altruism of the UNFCCC that this whole $10 Billion goes toward the actual construction of renewable power, and that there will be no graft and corruption in the Countries on the receiving end of all that lovely free money.

      This total of $10 Billion will construct FIVE large scale wind plants, each of 500MW with around 200 wind towers at each plant.

      So, here we a total of 2500MW in Nameplate.

      This will increase the total wind power generation versus total World Generation from all sources from:

      2.17% to 2.19%

      If it wasn’t so seemingly serious, you’d just have to laugh.

      Incidentally, the same power delivered from this $10 Billion allocated to these wind plants in their first year of operation is delivered by Bayswater in 137 days.

      Lips, don’t purse!

      Tony.

      131

      • #
        the Griss

        “and that there will be no graft and corruption”

        roflmao.. you is a funny guy, Tony ! :-)

        I reckon a maximum of 20% will end up where it is meant to go. !

        70

      • #
        gnome

        We could simplify the whole thing by giving all the $10 billion to Robert Mugabe, because he reckons that should be his share of the climate reparations fund.

        Lucky for Zimbabwe that he has been President since majority rule, because otherwise they would be contributing to the fund, not receiving from it.

        20

      • #
        Aaron M

        The skeptic in me wants to know where you derive those figures from, Tony. I suck at Google.

        10

        • #

          Aaron M, and for anyone else coming back to read an old Thread comment,

          it’s not really Google here you need to refer to but basically high school Mathematics really.

          Sometimes, I point things out like this to show that even while humungous amounts of money get thrown at something like this, in reality it amounts to virtually nothing concrete in the way of results, and that comes from an understanding of what to look for, and then how to apply the Maths to the problem.

          Currently, around $2 Billion will buy a wind plant of around 500MW, which using the average nacelle sized generator of 2.5MW, comes in at 200 of those huge towers with the three blades out front.

          So now we see that the $10 Billion raised here will buy 5 of these wind plants, so five times 500MW comes in at 2500MW ….. in Nameplate.

          Using the Industry Standard to calculate the yearly total power generation for delivery, and at the (current best case average) 30% Capacity Factor, that means total power generation comes in at 6.5745TWH. (2500 (MW) X 24 (hours in a day) X 365.25 (days in a year, leap year included as the added 0.25) X 0.3 (30% CF) and then expressed in TWH, so that’s the result divided by 1,000,000 to convert from MWH to TWH)

          The current World Total power generation from all sources is 25,500TWH, and the current World Total power generation from Wind is 555TWH, so the current percentage from wind is 2.17%.

          So now, add the new wind total of 6.5745TWH to the existing total of 555TWH and you get 561.5745TWH and so the new wind percentage of the World Total comes in at 2.2%, so I was originally out by perhaps the tiniest fraction here, but you get the picture.

          As for the Bayswater addition, total power delivery from Bayswater is 17.5TWH, so the total power delivered from this $10 Billion new wind addition of 6.5745TWH comes in at 137 days. (6.5745 divided by 17.5 X 365)

          I hope this solves your little puzzle.

          Tony.

          70

  • #
    pat

    a WaPo moment of truth:

    10 Dec: WaPo: Nick Miroff: How a Greenpeace stunt in Peru drives home the global climate divide
    Of course, one of the biggest challenges for climate change activists is to convince developing countries in the southern hemisphere that they should not aspire to enjoy the same material comforts — cars, airplanes, air conditioning, et al — that have enlarged the carbon footprint of wealthier nations.
    This is a delicate moral argument to make. It looks especially hollow coming from activists who are willing to break your laws and stomp all over one of your most sacred places because they think they walk on higher ground…
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/12/10/how-a-greenpeace-stunt-in-peru-drives-home-the-global-climate-divide/

    81

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Time for the School Report

    31 out of 32 picked up 2 or more red thumbs
    Tim picked up 22 with one post. (guess which side he’s on).
    40 posts attracted 2 reds, 13 got 3 and 10 got 4, and 1 (John F. Hultquist) got 5
    King Geo averaged 3.5 but for 2 posts only
    John F. Hultquist averaged 3.25 for 4 posts
    the Griss was THIRD with 2.7 (more aggression needed)
    Rereke Whakaaro only averaged 2.3 (must do better)
    A special mention for Roy Hogue who managed only 1 triple and 9 doubles. Mr. Consistency.
    Allen Ford picked up the only red thumb so far today for comment about NZ ( who was that, Rereke?)

    So maximum of 5 trolls, but probably 2 voting twice. After all it is unlikely they read the posts, let alone remembered or understood any of them.

    132

    • #
      el gordo

      Got a chuckle out of that, its an interesting barometer and worth keeping an eye on.

      72

    • #
      Aaron M

      No, actually after homogenising the data, the amount of red thumbs is in fact twice as much as the observation.

      21

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Does anyone know the temperature of a red thumb? That would be a really interesting statistic to watch. It must rise with the contentiousness index of the topic or maybe it correlates with some other event.

        Maybe Jo or one of her moderators can tell us. How about it, Jo, Ogie, Fly, ED, anyone? Do they start at 20° C or 30°. Do they go up at .05°/century or do they warm faster?

        I also wonder if 97% of climate scientists agree about the behavior of red thumbs.

        This may be a whole new area of climate research. Who knows until we look into it? And oh the lucrative grants that go along with it!

        11

    • #
      Allen Ford

      I don’t think it was my NZ reference, Graeme. I suspect our Red Thumber is a Slartybartfast hater, among other things!

      01

  • #
    pat

    nevermind…business goes on!

    12 Dec: Bloomberg: Stefan Nicola: Vestas Gets Biggest Wind Order as Africa Market Accelerates
    Vestas Wind Systems A/S (VWS) won an order to supply what the company says will be Africa’s biggest wind-power plant in a sign that clean-energy investments are picking up on the poorest continent.
    Vestas received an order from Lake Turkana Wind Power Ltd. for 365 of its 0.85-megawatt turbines, it said in a websitestatement. That’s the most machines the Copenhagen-based company has sold to a single plant…
    Chief Sales Officer Juan Araluce: “This will ease future projects and I’m sure it’s the first of many to come in Africa.” He declined to disclose the value of the order…
    The project, to be built about 1,200 kilometers (746 miles) from the port city of Mombasa, would generate enough power to meet about 15 percent of the nation’s electricity demand. While about 420 kilometers of transmission lines will have to be built to connect it to the grid, the plant will save East Africa’s biggest economy about 150 million euros ($186 million) in fuel imports each year, Vestas said…
    “Eastern and southern Africa are key markets for Vestas, and the Lake Turkana project will establish Kenya among the continent’s wind-energy leaders,” Christoph Vogel, president of Vestas Central Europe, said in the statement…
    Lake Turkana had been delayed by about three years because of difficulties in securing financing.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-12/vestas-gets-biggest-wind-turbine-order-as-africa-market-erupts.html

    12 Dec: RTCC: Ed King: As Lima climate talks stutter, business remains positive
    Rachel Kyte is the World Bank’s chief climate official. In 2013 it channelled around US$2.3 billion to clean energy projects in developing countries. In September it presented data showing that 73 countries and over 1000 businesses supported the concept of a carbon price, and were either operating with one or considering how best to do it.
    “You have a unity of voice now from progressive business, civil society, indigenous leaders and government, and in the sessions I’ve been participating on carbon pricing and investment and the economic drivers, there’s a real sense that the things we talked about a year ago as a long way off are now being talked about as inevitable,” she says.
    “Putting a price on carbon is something widely accepted as something we should be doing right now.”…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2014/12/12/as-lima-climate-talks-stutter-business-remains-positive/

    02

    • #
      Allen Ford

      Vestas received an order from Lake Turkana Wind Power Ltd. for 365 of its 0.85-megawatt turbines

      Gosh, that leaves only 811 turbines to go (in round figures,) to the equal the rated output of a single 1 MW coal fired generator.

      If the Kenyans a dumb enough to be sold this pup, then bankruptcy is only a sort time away. Didn’t they get the memo about Spain and Germany and their stunning successes with wind energy?

      Pity!

      10

  • #
    michael hart

    “Peak panic” past? Maybe.

    But my model projects that “peak shrieking” won’t come before the next knees-up in Paris.

    52

  • #
    MacSual

    Approx 2 1/2 inches per,and that will depend on the lithosphere contracting or expanding ,good luck to ém that’s like guessing which way a blancmange will lean!

    21

  • #
    scaper...

    I see that the Lima talk fest ended in nought. Funny that.

    51

  • #
    handjive

    Rising sea levels equal tragedy.

    97% certified Climate quack John Kerry asks:

    “Ask yourself, if Al Gore and Dr. Pachauri and Jim Hansen and the people who’ve been putting the science out there for years are wrong about this and we make these choices to do the things I’m talking about, what’s the worst thing that can happen to us for making these choices?
    . . .
    So, I asked myself that, John.

    And, I expect you to be accountable like Wang Chao-hung, better known as “Teacher Wang”:

    Man fined for dud doomsday warning

    51

  • #
    Dennis

    Add former penal settlement at Port Arthur, Tasmania, port built 1800s and the harbour tidal gauge, not surprisingly, is similar to Sydney Harbour records

    21

  • #
    sillyfilly

    Facts from Bob Carter you must be kidding. And a few facts!

    JCR: Watson 2010.(as linked by Jo)
    Sea Level rise Fort Denison from 1940-2000 (20 year avg): 68mm

    “..The longest continuous Australasian records, Fremantle and Auckland, situated on the western and eastern periphery of the Oceania region, respectively, exhibit remarkably similar trends in the relative 20-year moving average water level time series after 1920. Both time series show a rise in mean sea level of approximately 120 mm between 1920 and 2000..”

    Latest data from SEAFRAME tide gauge network flies in the face of all that Carter insinuates. And everybody must remember his idiocy on climate data when he proudly, but entirely falsely, claimed:
    “The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions.”

    Ho hum!

    211

    • #

      I love how you shift goal posts to try to show how others are wrong. Start off at sea levels and then move “seamlessly” into tropospheric warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions.

      It’s an object lesson in verbal prestidigitation.

      Here’s the paper’s abstract in full:

      WATSON, P.J., 2011¹. Is there evidence yet of acceleration in mean sea level rise around mainland Australia? Journal of Coastal Research, 27(2), 368–377. West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.

      As an island nation with some 85% of the population residing within 50 km of the coast, Australia faces significant threats into the future from sea level rise. Further, with over 710,000 addresses within 3 km of the coast and below 6-m elevation, the implication of a projected global rise in mean sea level of up to 100 cm over the 21st century will have profound economic, social, environmental, and planning consequences. In this context, it is becoming increasingly important to monitor trends emerging from local (regional) records to augment global average measurements and future projections. The Australasian region has four very long, continuous tide gauge records, at Fremantle (1897), Auckland (1903), Fort Denison (1914), and Newcastle (1925), which are invaluable for considering whether there is evidence that the rise in mean sea level is accelerating over the longer term at these locations in line with various global average sea level time-series reconstructions. These long records have been converted to relative 20-year moving average water level time series and fitted to second-order polynomial functions to consider trends of acceleration in mean sea level over time. The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000. Short period trends of acceleration in mean sea level after 1990 are evident at each site, although these are not abnormal or higher than other short-term rates measured throughout the historical record.

      No sane person gets excited about sporadic sea level rises of less than 0.002m/year. Do you get upset when somebody stirs your cup in the wrong direction? Because that’s equally significant.

      Within the paper, the author notes:

      A detailed analysis of 25 U.S. tide gauge records exceeding 80 years in length by Dean and Houston (pers. comm.) advised there was ‘‘no evidence to support positive acceleration over the 20th century as suggested by the IPCC, global climate change models and some researchers.’’ Rather, Dean and Houston (pers. comm.) conclude that this extensive analysis points toward a consistent trend of extremely weak deceleration in the rise of mean sea level over this time frame, noting these results may not be representative of broader global characteristics.

      Bob Carter doesn’t insinuate anything. In the text you quoted, he clearly reiterates what is shown in the paper to which he refers; titled Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature. From the abstract of that paper:

      The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics. Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.

      Where’s this latest SEAFRAME data which you’re throwing in Bob Carter’s face under false pretences? No link. No data. No real flies in the face. Just imaginary ones and lots of hand waving.

      Hillarys shows nothing remarkable happening with sea levels. Nor do Broome‘s tides exhibit unusual behaviour.

      ¹ You got the year of publication wrong, too.

      82

      • #
        sillyfilly

        “Where’s this latest SEAFRAME data which you’re throwing in Bob Carter’s face under false pretences? No link. No data. No real flies in the face. Just imaginary ones and lots of hand waving.”

        Too lazy to look?

        Sea Level Rise:
        Hillarys 31°49’32.0″S 115°44’18.9″E Nov 1991 +10.0mm/yr
        Broome 18°00’03.0″S 122°13’07.1″E Nov 1991 +9.0 mm/yr

        Nice commentary with little fact!

        15

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          >”Sea Level Rise:
          Hillarys…..Nov 1991 [- Aug 2014] +10.0mm/yr
          Broome…..Nov 1991 [- Aug 2014]
          +9.0 mm/yr”

          SEAFRAME nearest Sydney
          Port Kembla…..Jul 1991 – Aug 2014
          (24 years)
          +3.5 mm/yr

          +3.4mm/yr is the IPCC’s least case scenario to reach 119mm rise as per #40.2.1., 2015 – 2050. But if you look at Port Kembla in Fig 13, the required acceleration is not evident. See SEAFRAME page 27:

          Figure 13. Monthly mean sea levels to August 2014
          http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60201/IDO60201.201408.pdf

          It is very clear from the data that +3.5 mm/yr is in no way typical of the 24 year SEAFRAME period for Port Kembla. The 2001 year is much the same as the 2013 year i.e. +0mm/yr, no change.

          Same, but far more pronounced, for Broome and Hillarys. An abrupt jump occurred 1990 – 2000.

          That is why the Fort Denison Sydney long-term trend is typical of sea level rise on the east coast of Australia because the abrupt short-term fluctuations (not acceleration note) at Broome, Hillarys, and Port Kembla are of no account in terms of the realistic trend:

          +0.65mm/yr

          These are the facts Silly Filly: Short-term projections of historical trends are as irresponsible as long-term projections based on GHG scenarios

          71

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      >Facts from Bob Carter you must be kidding. And a few facts!”

      Well OK, let’s see the facts:

      Sea Level Trends (interactive global map)
      http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

      Sydney 0.65mm/yr = 6.5mm/decade = 65mm/century = 6.5cm/century

      This is the historical trend which, as it turns out, corresponds reasonably well with the title of the post:

      ‘Sydney Sea levels rising at just 6.5cm per century. Peak-panic is behind us.’

      However, the IPCC AR5 SPM Fig 9 has it that SLR will be 28 – 98cm 2000 – 2100. The least-case is a factor of 4.3 times the historical Sydney rate and worst-case 15 times the historical Sydney rate.

      This means, apparently, 8 – 12cm SLR 2000 – 2050 applying everywhere including Sydney:

      IPCC AR5 Working Group I
      ‘Projections of sea level rise’
      Jonathan Gregory
      Lead author, Chapter 13, Sea level change

      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/3_gregory13sbsta.pdf

      Questions are:

      1) Why has this acceleration not started already at Sydney?

      2) When and why will the acceleration suddenly start in order for the 3.5 decade projection target (2015 – 2050) to occur at 4.3 – 15 times more than the historical rate?

      Think. We’re only talking 35 years here.

      91

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Correction.

        This,

        “This means, apparently, 8 – 12cm SLR 2000 – 2050 applying everywhere including Sydney:”

        Was only using the mid ranges of ‘Projections of thermal expansion under RCPs’

        The actual IPCC range is about 17 – 35cm SLR 2000 – 2050 in SPM Fig 9 (i.e. it’s worse than I thought)

        So Question 2) becomes:

        2) When and why will the acceleration suddenly start in order for the 3.5 decade projection target (2015 – 2050) to occur at 5.2 – 10.7 times more than the historical rate to date for Sydney?

        6.5 x 0.35century = 2.28cm rise 2015 – 2050 @ historical rate.

        35yrs/50yrs = 0.7

        17 x 0.7 = 11.9cm rise 2015 – 2050 @ IPCC least-case rate.

        35 x 0.7 = 24.5cm rise 2015 – 2050 @ IPCC worst-case rate.

        11.9/2.28 = 5.2
        24.5/2.28 = 10.7

        The IPCC scenario is a radical and completely unrealistic trend change in just 35 years for Sydney.

        81

        • #
          the Griss

          The IPCC is guilty of contemptible falsifications of possible trends.

          Only those with a gullible brain-washed mind and no attribution to FACTS and REALITY would think otherwise.

          31

    • #
      the Griss

      “Sea Level rise Fort Denison from 1940-2000 (20 year avg): 68mm”

      Now, why would someone choose to start in 1940, when the record goes back to the 1890′s ?
      Could it be that 1930-1950 shows a slight dip ;-)

      Over the full data series. Fort Denison has a trend of 0.65mm/year
      Fremantle 1.54mm/yr
      and Auckland 1.29mm/yr

      There is no indication of any acceleration and no reason to assume there would be any.

      IN FACT if you look at Figure 4, you will see that satellite data shows a deceleration of natural sea level rise.

      It seems that it is the dopey donkey that is again, very short on “facts”, and very full of donkey s**t.

      Bob Carter seriously scares the CAGW alarmist cult, because he presents FACT, and FACTS are the absolute enemy of the climate change FRORD !!!
      (intentional misspelling to get past the auto censor)

      31

      • #
        sillyfilly

        Now, why would someone choose to start in 1940, when the record goes back to the 1890′s ?
        Could it be that 1930-1950 shows a slight dip ;-)

        If you had read the paper you would, at least, have some idea!

        15

        • #
          the Griss

          “The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000.”

          You obviously haven’t read it.

          Poor dopey donkey.. short on facts yet again.

          51

  • #
    Mike of NQ

    Well I’m absolutely gobsmacked. Did I just read that sea levels have been dropping for the last 64 years in Sydney, Auckland, Freemantle and Newcastle. Is this the best kept secret on the planet or what? Why does the graph appear to stop in 1995, was there a dramatic rise after this point????????? I read an article about 10 years ago of a place in Tasmania where sea levels have been recorded for 160 years but have not been able to find same. Again it allegedly showed no rise in 150 years.

    At the height of “peak panic”, my insurance increased $1,800 in 12 months. Why? because it was now deemed that I lived in a flood zone. I have never laughed so hard in my life, mainly because I live on top of an escarpment 345 metres above sea level and 13 km from the nearest river. I did escape paying the additional $1,800, but I had to change insurance company and declare / acknowledge that I would not be covered for flood.

    41

    • #
      the Griss

      “Did I just read that sea levels have been dropping for the last 64 years in Sydney, Auckland, Freemantle and Newcastle.”

      NO.. where did you read that ?

      They have been rising very slowly and pretty consistently since records began in the late 1800′s Somewhere between 5mm/decade and 20mm/decade. Same as most places around the world.

      Durban 1.23mm/yr
      Simons Bay SA 1.94mm/yr
      Argentine Is (Antarctica) 1.43mm/yr
      Algeciras (spain) 0.43mm/yr
      Aburatsu (Japan) 1.89mm/yr
      Aberdeen (UK) 0.72mm/yr
      Balboa (Panama) 1.49mm/yr
      Xiamin (China) 1.12mm/yr

      So, 345m escarpment.. I reckon you’ll be safe for a while yet. :-)

      61

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    ‘Time for the UN to get out of climate change’

    Negotiators and Secretary General continue to ignore scientists and public opinion

    Tom Harris, Executive Director, ICSC

    OTTAWA, Dec. 13, 2014 /PRNewswire/ – “Climate change negotiators in Lima, Peru seemed oblivious to the findings of the UN’s ongoing My World survey about what the people of the world really want the agency to focus on,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). “The seven million people polled so far indicate that, in comparison with issues such as education, health care, jobs, and energy, they care very little about climate change.”

    “Perhaps most out of touch with reality is the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself who on Wednesday asserted that climate change remains his ‘top priority’,” continued Harris.

    ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia explained, “That ‘action taken on climate change’ rates dead last among the 16 priorities the public wants to see action on is not surprising. They understand that the remote possibility of human activity contributing to climate problems decades from now is unimportant in comparison with the very real problems faced by the world’s poor today.

    “During the UN Climate Change Conferences in 2007, 2009, and 2012, hundreds of climate experts endorsed open letters (see here) to Mr. Ban explaining his mistakes on the science,” said Carter. “Among the scientific luminaries signing the letters were Dr. Antonio Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists; Freeman J. Dyson of Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies; Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor of natural sciences, Warsaw; and Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    “The Secretary General did not even acknowledge receipt of our open letters, let alone address any of our points,” concluded Carter.

    New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor asked, “How can anyone take Mr. Ban seriously after he asserted on Tuesday that ‘Science has not only spoken – it is shouting from the rooftops. Our planet has a fever – and it is getting hotter every day.’

    More>>>>>

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/time-for-the-un-to-get-out-of-climate-change-285707691.html

    00

  • #

    OOPS! Perhaps we’re not supposed to look at the data.

    Sea Level Plummeting At Fastest Rising Location On Earth
    According to experts at the University of Colorado, sea level east of the Philippines is rising at about 15 mm/year. However, their own data shows sea level at that location falling 36 mm/year since late 2010.

    Read the lot at Real Science

    10