Here’s a novel approach. Beenstock et al wondered if tide gauges were placed in any old spot around the world or were biased toward area where sea-level did more rising. They compared the location of tide gauges in the year 2000 to sea level rises and falls as measured by satellite altimetry. It turns out the placement seems to be independent (meaning anywhere). This is pretty important because the infernally tough thing about measuring sea levels is whether the land is subsiding or rising at the same time, and how to correct for that. If tide gauges are spread evenly (or quasi-randomly), it means we could average the lot instead of trying to correct and reconstruct each one individually. So that’s what they did – average (they did not reconstruct).
The consensus estimate is that sea-levels are rising by 2mm a year (and 3mm lately, with adjusted satellite data). Beenstock et al used 1,000 tide gauges and found global sea level rise was more like 1mm a year (very similar to the rise Nils Axel Morner found on that stable spot in Denmark). The conclusion is that sea level is rising slowly at 1mm a year, and that it hasn’t changed, and that local sea level rises and falls are very common, and that correcting for them is risky.
Although mean sea levels are rising by 1mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States. In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year. Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges. In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6mm/year.
They blame the reconstructions for the difference (adjustments strike again):
We suggest that the difference between the two estimates is induced by the widespread use of data reconstructions which inform the consensus estimates. There are two types of reconstruction. The first refers to reconstructed data for tide gauges in PSMSL prior to their year of installation. The second refers to locations where there are no tide gauges at all. Since the tide gauges currently in PSMSL are a quasi-random sample, our estimate of current GMSL rise is unbiased. If this is true, reconstruction bias is approximately 1mm/year.
This paper came out in May. H/t to especially The HockeySchtick, and Climate Depot: The paper is open access. See link below.
(Click to enlarge)
They found the placement of gauges is quasi random” — at least for recent times when there are hundreds of stations. Beenstock point out that there were not many gauges in 1900, and most of those were in areas where sea level was rising. The sampling was biased then. Hence the tide gauges from the 1800s overestimate how much sea levels rise globally.
Curious drop off in tide gauges after 2000?
It is clear from Figure 1 that not only were new tide gauges commissioned, but some tide gauges were also decommissioned. The number of tide gauges decreased sharply after 1995 because of reporting delays which are substantial.
Map 1 shows that the global diffusion of tide gauges has been far from random. In 1990 there were almost no tide gauges in the southern hemisphere and they were concentrated in the Baltic Sea. A century later the coverage is more comprehensive, but Africa and South America are under-sampled. By contrast Japan which had only one tide gauge in 1900 had more than a hundred in 2000. (Click to enlarge)
Sea level rises and falls are regional
Beenstock et al note that tide gauges show rising trends (red dots below) in places which are right next to gauges showing the sea level is falling (blue dots). But most of the time the tide gauges show a trendless change (yellow dots).
Map 3: SLR trends by Tide Gauges; Results of KPSS tests for Stationarity by Location of Tide Gauge and Number of Observations (Click to enlarge to see all regions)
From the conclusions:
Sea level rise is regional rather than global and is concentrated in the southern Baltic, the Ring of Fire, and the Atlantic coast of the US. By contrast the north-west Pacific coast and north-east coast of India are characterized by sea level fall. In the minority of locations where sea levels are rising the mean increase is about 4 mm/year and in some locations it is as large as 9 mm/year. The fact that sea level rise is not global should not detract from its importance in those parts of the world where it is a serious problem.
Abstract
The location of tide gauges is not random. If their locations are positively (negatively) correlated with SLR, estimates of global SLR will be biased upwards (downwards). We show that the location of tide gauges in 2000 is independent of SLR as measured by satellite altimetry. Therefore PSMSL tide gauges constitute a quasi-random sample and inferences of SLR based on them are unbiased, and there is no need for data reconstructions. By contrast, tide gauges dating back to the 19th century were located where sea levels happened to be rising. Data reconstructions based on these tide gauges are therefore likely to over-estimate sea level rise.
We therefore study individual tide gauge data on sea levels from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) during 1807 – 2010 without recourse to data reconstruction. Although mean sea levels are rising by 1mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States. In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year. Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges. In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6mm/year.
REFERENCE
Michael Beenstock, Daniel Felsenstein,*Eyal Frank & Yaniv Reingewertz, (2014) Tide gauge location and the measurement of global sea level rise, Environmental and Ecological Statistics, May 2014 [Abstract]
Now that this approach has given results theta may not be acceptable to and/or consistent with the desired outcome of those who are proponents of AGW, how long will it be before the SLR readings are, like temperature records be ‘homogenised’ to show levels are really rising dangerously rapidly? One can imagine that areas where the rate is 9mm/year will be “homogenised” by mixing readings from South East Asia with those from areas where levels are static or falling even if they are geographically far removed, to enhance the impression of dangerously rising sea levels.
271
It’s called “progressive Enlightenment liberalism”? And one of its objectives is the public feeling of “end of history”
10
And the “Enlightenment” bit is to much policy based. A better word would be propaganda. I read “progressive Propaganda liberalism”?
20
It is interesting to note that tide guages measure that which is important and relevant to us… How much the sea level is actually changing in relation to the land we are living on.
140
On this tectonic planet, everything is relative. The main cause of the sea level rise in SE Asia is land subsidence, since the 2005 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake. Malaysia is particularly affected.
150
All this work to refute the simplistic notion that more CO2 = dangerous warming = dangerous sea level rise!
Thank goodness we’re starting to see some sanity. It’s very clear that doomsday is not on our doorstep, despite a rise in CO2 from the supposed pre-industrial 280ppm to the current 400 or so.
242
The main, if not major, inference from this research is that there is no Anthropogenic component (at least, no noticable human `footprint’) in the small amount of global warming we’ve had.
CO2, come in please, all is forgiven!
142
“CO2, come in please, all is forgiven!”
The demonization of CO2 is probably one of the most stupid things humankind has ever done !!
CO2 is the building block of all life on Earth.
183
Blocks of it are good for chilling beer as well as building life. Two equally important uses.
60
Not only that but CO2 actually is essential for life.
Its presence in the bloodstream is essential as it is a neuro-regulator and determines when and if we take our “next breath”.
Cheyne-Stokes breathing pattern at the end of life is getting rid of CO2 in our bloodstream in preparation for that last breath when we exhale and call it quits.
KK
52
In this instance, I’d prefer not to be incarcerated within the generalisation of ‘humankind’. When we point the bone we need to be as specific as possible. Those that perpetrated and gained from the lavish, wanton incoherence of the meme need to be called out, over and over again. They can well afford it.
40
Jo,
Australian slang has some great phrases that describe some of the measurements made by “concerned climate scientists” ™ such as ‘3/5ths of f**k all’, ‘a bee’s d**k’ and ‘your sh**ting me’.
Nils‐Axel Mörner and now Beenstock et al have shown that folk such as “100 metres sea rise Robyn Williams of the ABC” should be laughed out of town along with the rest of the “concerned climate scientists” ™.
That the “100 metres sea rise Robyn Williams of the ABC” ilk rely on one tide gauge in or near Hong Kong to determine sea level rise for a global increase in sea levels invokes in me the third Australian colloquialism as above.
Obviously, for some, continental drift, influence of the moon and the sun is meaningless.
King Canute would be laughing at the predictors of massive sea level rise.
243
And I always thought is was ‘5 /8 ths of f**k all’ ( which admittedly would be slightly (2.5%) more of f**k all than 3/5ths).
100
Well there you go Matty.
I guess it depends on which side your bread is buttered!
You say that 5/8ths is 2.5% more than 3/5ths but I say that it is 4.167(rounded)% more.
If my side of the bread interpretation is correct then I could say you were out by 66.7% (4.167 – 2.500 = 1.667 => 1.667 / 2.500 = 66.7%)
But if your side of the bread interpretation is correct then I am out by 40% (4.167 – 2.500 = 1.667 => 1.667 / 4.167 = 40.0%)
Now please don’t tell anyone how I have manipulated the above numbers.
If you do I could prosecute my case in the CofPO (Court of Public Opinion) and I am sure that 97% PO’s will support me.
QED
91
But 8 out of 5 people are innumerate, so 97% really represents 155.2% of the population.
60
Now why didn’t I notice that?
10
The full saying from my youth is 3/5th’s of 5/8th’s of F*** all. I leave it up to others to do the calculations.
00
That’s what I thought too, Matty.
But there’s only a poofteenth in it anyway. 😉
50
Fair suck of the sav, Raven.
We are talking huge % differences here.
It has major, major repercussions.
When the erstwhile climate folk talk about an increase in temperature it is major major.
At least an increase by 2020 of, RUN we will all be dead!
21
… and 97% of statisticians agree …
20
Except for the remaining 11.8% who say that 3/4 of the others don’t know what they talking about half the time.
If only I were only half as bright as I am stupid I’d be twice as clever as I am now.
30
And I always thought it was 3/5ths of 5/8ths of Sweet Fanny Adams.
20
You, me@home, win the prize.
00
You are absolutely correct! That is what I have always believed is the Aussie definition of an extremely, extremely, extremely small amount. I used that once in Malaysia when trying to describe a TLV of 5ppm for methyl bromide in air (now there’s an environmental issue!). Got a few blank stares.
00
One can’t argue with the data. However, one can argue endlessly about the interpretation of the data. Once the data is “corrected”, according to some theory, it is no longer data. It is nothing but speculation. Then the endless argument shifts to be about the corrections and the theory of corrections.
Notice that the further away from being grounded on reality the argument becomes, it becomes more and more about politics: wishes, hopes, fears, fantasies, guesses, and alarm. Reality fades into the distant background. Conclusions and public policy become disconnected from reality and achieve only unintended consequences. Some of the consequences may be neutral to actually good but most are bad to catastrophic.
The bottom line is that there is only IS! What we know, choose, and do must be based upon that fact or we will individually and collectively pay a huge price. Sadly, our so called leaders get away with forcing the rest of us to pay that price and demand they be allowed to do “more of the same”.
We keep electing new people and they keep doing the same things. We try to elect better people and that doesn’t work either. The truth is that we don’t need better people. We need people with better ideas and, because of that, they are capable of making better decisions. Until that happens, it is the same old same old same old …….
211
Lionell: I think that if we had politicians who use their faculties more things might improve. It’s no good writing to them however. I wrote to my Member of Parliament here in the UK commenting on wind turbines, and presented her with real-world figures showing the lack of dangerous global warming despite CO2 rises. She didn’t reply to my letter which I sent to the House of Commons, but replied to a later email.
Did she comment on or discuss my figures? No. All I got was a regurgitation of the party line on how much she believed in the need for renewable energy. As politicians do, she sidestepped the issue.
She won’t be getting my vote.
161
You demonstrate the negative portion of my post. The lack of better (more grounded in reality) ideas gives rise to the same old party line, the same old choices, and the same old damaging policies. She is at war with reality. We the people are simply collateral damage from her attempts to rewrite it. There is only IS no matter how many votes she gets in support of her attempt to make IS what it is not. Is remains IS!
71
write back again telling her you will post copies of the email exchange,non reply to the letter and the non response to the points you raised through as many doors in her constituency as possible,you should get a proper response then 😉
41
bit chilly: I think this would be an interesting exercise, but I doubt she’s ever taken the trouble to actually research what’s going on and think for herself.
00
Couldn’t have said it better myself, Lionel. Succinct and to the point.
Should be branded onto the forehead of every alarmist scientist whose data fiddling corruption led us into this mess.
61
The drop in number of tide gauges is alarming. Decomissioning is one thing, but a decreasing number in total suggests that the gauges are “not cooperative”. You would think that committed climate scientists would be expanding every type of measuring gauge to improve all data sets. I believe that NASA etal also allowed the Pacific buoy system to degrade by not fixing/replacing or adding to the number in operation. One would think that monitoring and expanding data collection would be the number one priority of all climate scientists. Over time it might get rid of the GI in GIGO.
160
Your theory has a fundamental problem in that you (laughably) suggest that climate scientists are concerned with expanding data collection and accuracy. If they were to spend money on improving their data several very important things are negatively affected:
-Moneys are less available for 1st class international air fare to conferences in sciency destinations like Vegas, Monte Carlo and Honolulu.
-Salaries (and the positions that go with them) are less available for family and friends.
-The pool of money available to pay peers to speak at each others universities gets tied up in things like accurate sensors with traceable seals on the adjustment pots.
-Money for that paid sabbatical to write a textbook that their peers will list as “required” on their syllabi gets sparse when one upgrades remote reporting equipment. So much easier to have a grad student write some infill code for free so they don’t have to get dirty installing remote stations.
-They are actually saving us taxpayers money by not acquiring raw data. That way they don’t have to pay for the resulting data from that messy “real world” to be properly adjusted every year or two to match their colleagues most recent GCM model outputs.
22
same with the thermometers in the Arctic, but thats Cli-Fi, when the data contradicts the Cause, drop the data.
You do hit on a rather amusing point, we are told that the earth is under stress, climate might be changing in “unprecedented” ways.
But these very same Government Agencies pushing Fear of Climate, then decommission the very stations that might confirm or falsify their supposition.
Canada is a classic, in 1990s the Department, Environment Canada, shut down all manned weather stations in the Arctic.
Citing cost, they then spent 4 billion on computer models.
And then in early 2000s they put out tenders to replace all the automatic sensors, as they were not adequate for the job.
Something about being unable to accurately measure temperatures from -60C t0 +40c.
My suspicion is that these devices were installed in summer, calibrated 0-40C and then left.
No recalibration, ever.
Mighty easy way to create the illusion of the Arctic warming like never before, when your equipment cannot measure record lows.
61
Takes me back to my post of 16 July ’12: updated 10/12/12
“This has got me wondering what else is being Acorned … ” [Referring to the temperature records, minima exceeding maxima etc.]
Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project perhaps?
I need to keep an eye on two or three tide gauges up here in NQ for the purpose of checking habitable floor and trench invert levels against AHD and HAT respectively. Haven’t kept any older records unfortunately. Didn’t see the need as the changes were minimal and not always positive. Then I noticed discrepancies creeping in, eg tide predictions issued by Maritime Safety Queensland factoring in a 1.2mm rise, well exceeded by ABSLMP’s 3.8 and 4.8 for the two BoM tide gauges in Queensland. The only coincident site appears to be Rosslyn Bay: MSQ’s short-term sea level rise 2011 = 2.425mm/yr (?!), BoM’s = 3.8mm/yr.
Ok – there are differences between tide gauges:
equipment (radar, laser ranging), GPS;
purpose (keel clearance, storm surge calculations, sea-level change)
Also: Land changes (subsidence, uplift);
Coastal topography – characteristics and changes.
All differ, none are necessarily “wrong”.
MSQ (Maritime Safety Queensland) lists 44 operational permanent tide gauges in Queensland:
Ports – 11; MSQ – 2; AMSA (Australian Maritime Safety Authority) – 5; DERM – 24, NTC (BoM) – 2.
Any port authorities squawking about sea levels? Altering their berthing timetables?
61
they have no need of tide guages ,they have no physical measurement of the “heat” in the deep oceans,yet know for certain it must be there.
31
R2DToo
This is exactly what happened to temperature measuring sites in about 1990. There was a drop from about 12,000to 7000 in a few years and down to 5000 by the year 2000. see this graph
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
31
“The drop in number of tide gauges is alarming.”
Look for gauges that don not show a positive SL rise, to be gradually decommissioned.
21
I guess in climate science the more money you trow at it, the less data you get.
Flashback 2010 http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/the-great-dying-of-thermometers/
91
You can tell that sea-level have been accelerating their rise by the clamorous voices from maritime agencies, Navies, boat-yards, fishing-fleets captains crews, fishermen, dockside inhabitants, port officials, boatbuilders, harbor-masters etc., the world over, all voicing their alarm at the ever increasing inundation of their workplace and homes, that is happening now.
Or maybe not.
161
Do you know a good boat builder?
Kind regards
Noah
61
Must accommodate breeding pairs of many different species, and 15 gender of humans.
80
does that include climate scientists? And Greens?
50
I hesitate to ask but… who decides what constitutes a “breeding pair,” or am I being a gender hater simply by using the word “pair?”
70
Dear Noah
I have it on good authority that you are in a time warp.
Your boat adventure was long ago in the past but if you want to go looking for your boat it is apparently parked on mount Ararat where all past attempts to locate it up near the top have failed.
Given that the oceans only rose about 120 metres I would not look any higher than that above sea level.
Regards
KK
40
Hi Noah.
Tell me, do you feel a sense of déjà vu here?
10
Too right, Tom.
For example, you would think Hobart’s Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) would have the low down on sea level rises of the immediate future:
24 Jan, 2014: ‘Global hub’ for Antarctic research opens in Hobart
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-24/27global-hub27-for-antarctic-research-opens-in-hobart/5218264
IMAS Building Project
Construction of the new $45 million Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) building on Hobart’s waterfront is complete.
Staff and students begin moving into the building on Wednesday 11 December. 2013.
The images below show the building in its final stages of fitout prior to staff and students moving in.
http://www.utas.edu.au/commercial-services-development/building-works/completed-projects/institute-for-marine-and-antarctic-studies-imas
50
The Lempriere-Ross mark
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/archives/archive50/newposts/304/topic304593.shtm
This Ordnance Survey Bench Mark engraved into a rock face on a little island near Port Arthur, Tasmania out there in 1841 by the famous Antarctic explorer Captain Sir James Clark Ross and amateur meteorologist Thomas Lempriere to mark mean sea level is still there today.
It is believed to be the earliest such gauge in the Southern Hemisphere.
Dr Hunter said the Port Arthur evidence was broadly consistent with sea-level records which had been taken for 91 years at Fremantle and for 82 years at Sydney’s Fort Denison and with international climate change estimates.
He said it provided an important benchmark against which Australian sea-level changes could continue to be measured.
. . .
CSIRO promised a report out by 2000 – nothing to date in
20122014 and still waiting– because this mark is still only 350mm above mean sea level
–Dr Pugh says:
“technical problems have prevented CSIRO from recording reliable data until just the last few months and, because mean sea level can change over the course of a year through seasonal water temperature changes, no results will be published until the year 2000″
Why?
1. They can’t alter the data that much to prove it wrong.
2. Too many people have recorded over the 171 years.
3. That particular land mass is stable – so they can’t even add 50mm on the land rise.
4. Because on the “Isle of the Dead”, the mark made in 1841 (171 years ago) is still only 350mm above mean sea level.
5. Because they’re running out of time for the BullSh*L.
6. The BBC ran an article in 1999 with Dr. Pughs excuses that it is wrong.
(features the late, great John Daly)
7. The ABC doesn’t even know it exists and are not capbale of an unbiased review.
The “Isle of the Dead” Ordnance Survey Bench Mark is there now, today – KR, Maxcaine, KFC et al – go and have a look. This has not been peer reviewed, it is carved in STONE not melting ICE.
. . .
Even today, a search of the CSIRO site returns ZERO pages for the words, The Lempriere-Ross mark or ‘Lempriere-Ross’. http://www.csiro.au
‘oogle returned this. An invite to CSIRO tea & crumpets looking at the site. In 2000.
http://www.marine.csiro.au/auth/anzclim/social.html
(and this link to epic Jennifer Marohasy post, King Tide Not So High)
41
handjive
Thanks for the info. Great stuff. More info to annoy some CAGW hardliners I know.
11
Found this through my https://duckduckgo[dot]com search engine
http://lempriere.org/csiro_marine_research.pdf
00
Why did it do that?
It’s https://duckduckgo.com
00
The Ross-Lempriere benchmark got an outing on ABC’s Catalyst program on July 17, with this howler:
Of course, the mark represents mean sea level, not high tide.
If these bozos cannot comprehend the significance of the mark, then their conclusions are worthless.
For a full discussion of the Isle of the Dead mark, see the late John Daly’s site.
01
There seems to be a lack of understanding of recent history in relation to sea levels. About 10, 000 year ago it was still possible to walk from Hobart to Port Moresby as sea levels were much lower and a lot water was held in ice. In Roman times, 2000 years ago, sea levels were higher and many of the old Roman ports are now 20-30 km. from the sea, so what’s a couple of mm. each century. People seem to forget that land masses also rise and fall too.
91
Australian floods of 2010 and 2011 caused global sea level to drop
Puzzled oceanographers who wondered where the sea level rise went for 18 months now have their answer – it went to Australia.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/23/australian-floods-global-sea-level
August 19, 2013; UCAR NCAR
Quote: “New research led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) shows that when three atmospheric patterns came together over the Indian and Pacific oceans, they drove so much precipitation over Australia in 2010 and 2011 that the world’s ocean levels dropped measurably.
*In fact, with Australia in a major drought, they are rising faster than before.”
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/10090/global-sea-level-rise-dampened-australia-floods
This* is a NASA funded lie.
Australia was declared drought free in 2012.
New Zealand drought free in 2013.
> What does the Abbott Australian Government’s “best” catastrophic CSIRO 97% consensus science say?
“If emissions continue to track at the top of IPCC scenarios global average sea level could rise by nearly 1 m by 2100 (0.52−0.98 m from a 1986-2005 baseline)”
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/climate-change-future/sea-level
> What are the consequences of such failed 97% science consensus advice?
(besides useless & fraudulent carbon taxes)
Lake Macquarie City Council
Page Last Updated: 2014-Apr-29
“Water levels in Lake Macquarie are expected to rise at the same rate and to the same level as the ocean.”
http://www.lakemac.com.au/page.aspx?pid=844
AUGUST 22, 2014
A PLAN to deepen The Entrance channel to improve the water quality of Tuggerah Lakes and provide better boating access may be doomed before it even gets off the ground.
Two Wyong councillors representing the Save Tuggerah Lakes Party want to deepen the channel to about five metres by shaving the rock-shelf beds.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/central-coast/darkinjung-land-council-says-aboriginal-heritage-investigation-must-take-place/story-fngr8h0p-1227031652265
. . .
Why would a ‘responsible’ council want to open the seaway entrance when rising sea levels are ‘catastrophic’, potentially affecting all ratepayers?
What a complete, fraudulent mess.
The map of the central coast area from ‘oogle for overseas visitors.
The Entrance, Tuggerah Lakes, is just south of Lake Macquarie.
21
I think what gets me most about sea level rise is the gap between what the average AGW sheep in the street thinks is the actual sea level rise (something like 1-3M per year) and what it actually is (something like 1-3mm per year). Im not sure who to blame, but the MSM must bear a lot of the responsibility as they continue to run stories about suburbs disappearing by 2020 without ever seeming to present the real numbers.
Sea level rises are basically a non event. I think someone on this forum posted a while back “just plan to move all your coastal infrastructure back by 1M per century and youll always be a long way ahead of the problem.”. Even if you were worried about such a meaningless issue, that would indeed fix it. There is absolutely no reason to even pay attention, let alone panic.
Then combine the worst case real numbers (3.2mm/year) with the claim that ice is melting at a record rate and you realise your killing two birds of panic with one scientific stone. If in fact ice is melting faster than ever then guess what, its not being reflected in sea level rises anything like what your bogus models predict. You simply cant have it both ways.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday_2.html <— Utter garbage basically. Anyone who reports this nonsense is unworthy of being called a journalist, reporter or scientist and anyone who believes it is a drooling imbecile.
101
Fort Denison, Sydney Harbour, is one of the most stable places around.
The SL rise there is about 0.65mm/yr.
61
So, to fix that we would just need to invite the kids on the beach to build their sand castles in a particular place (This is how unimportant this is: in a hundred years we could easilly build a levy bank, by hand, using children’s toys).
40
Here’s another anecdote.
How to stay ahead of sea rise. Many coastal areas have a road alongside the ocean, every 10 years if you resurface the road by adding 10mm of bitumen, that’s a layer just two stones thick (roads typically use a 5mm aggregate), then the road would be an effective barrier to sea level rise.
SLR is a complete non event!
31
Port Arthur Tasmania too.
12
SG, some of the links down the bottom of that NG link are a real hoot !!
Thanks for the morning chuckle. 🙂
11
yeah, you’re right, a real hoot:
I didn’t realise those populations were growing so fast … when I last looked, the whole of Egypt had only about 84 million, and Bangladesh about 150 million.
20
And of course, being a delta, if the sea level does rise, so will the delta. 🙂
00
That’s the problem with deltas: they’re always rising. That’s why so many old Roman ports are now so far from the sea. 🙂
00
The BIG problem with Bangladesh is the land reclaimation in the delta, and the excessive silt cause by river reprofiling, removing whole mountains for building supplies, and the damns and massive water management schemes that the Russians helped plan and install during the 1950-1970 so that industrial farming of rice could happen.
In other word they have made a right horlicks of the land use.
http://www.dredgingtoday.com/2010/06/27/bangladesh-government-announces-plan-for-dhaka-land-reclamation/
http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/old/index.php?ref=MjBfMTBfMjFfMTJfMV8yN18xNDc2OTA=
00
As I have said many times, we engineers solved these problems centuries ago, We have tools for this called piles of dirt (landfill) and sea walls. We are talking about sea rise of just one besser brick height per century!
91
“We are talking about sea rise of just one besser brick height per century!”
That’s what the council and government workers are scared of !! 🙂
10
Work?
40
Don’t know how to lay a Besser brick/block?
00
bobl, is that a Besser brick height of 76mm, 90mm, 162mm or a Besser block height of 190mm?
And tell us more of these ‘piles of dirt’ you speak of, I’m sure the IPCC will find this new science fascinating. 🙂
50
Hi Yonnie.
I’d say the 76 mm ones.
Re piles of dirt: Check out the new technology: Google Earth.
Piles of dirt are shown as green or brown, and oceans as blue. 😉
10
Umm, what about the ones with white caps on? Do they count? As a pile?
00
Aha! Good point. Frozen piles of dirt, or at least icily topped…
..Although the interpretation of ‘white’ is confounded a little by the presence of clouds here and there. 🙂
00
Don’t foret there are many PR studies that don’t support the CAGW agenda promoted by the extremists and the MSM. Co2 science is a good source———— http://www.co2science.org/subject/subject.php and the Popular Technology site has 1350 PR studies as well—————
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
31
What, no acceleration?
I blame that plain in Spain for this!
30
Getting things in Proportion.
During the “big melt” which started about 18 to 20 thousand years ago there was a prolonged period of about 10,000 years during which the average annual rise was 13 millimetres.
This is thirteen times the present rate.
Time frame is also important as is shown by the fact that when the big rise ended about 8,000 years back there was a switch to ocean fall.
In the last 8,000 years the average fall has been 0.075 mm per annum but over the last 2,000 it averaged 0.75 mm.
There were a couple of rises interspersed with the falls but the figures are overall averages for the periods mentioned.
Current rise rate of about 1 mm pa is hardly unusual or dangerous given fluctuations of the past 8 millennia and in historical terms it could be argued that sea levels have rarely been this stable in the past.
Alarmism is shutting out perspective.
KK
50
Expect new ABC headline : “Climate skeptic paper confirms extreme Australian sea level rise.” 🙂
20
Just watching the Billabong pro, where sea level rise is needed on that reef break!
Don’t miss Kelly Slater’s 10 point ride on the biggest wave.
He is the best surfer you will ever see.
Watch it live on your computer.
http://www.aspworldtour.com/events/2014/mct/698/billabong-pro-tahiti
10
They are claiming it as one of the best competitions ever.
Final coming up.
Don’t miss it.
00
Meanwhile on the banks of the Hawkesbury River north of Sydney Tim Flannery enjoys the water views from one of his two waterfront properties with his “tinny” beached and ready for a fishing trip.
31
Mod- I believe the rate of change of velocity is “acceleration”
00
Here is something helpful
http://www.dumbtionary.com/word/accelleration.shtml
dumb means unable to speak, so this dictionary is also misnamed. Or misnammed to be consistent.
00
More spin from Ross Garnaut. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-hope-in-china-coal-turnaround-ross-garnaut-20140825-1086tp.html#ixzz3BRaIPmeT
Here’s the reality from the EIA—— http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/table21.cfm And here http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm More idiotic fact free garbage from Garnaut and Fairfax.
22
One hopes that China, India, and hopefully soon, Africa, will continue to ramp up their CO2 output. 🙂
The atmosphere and the biosphere need more of it. ! 🙂
32
Ross GUANO…..
What about all that pollution in Papua HE was responsible for !
https://ramumine.wordpress.com/tag/ross-garnaut/
http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/ross-garnaut-is-a-traitor-to
00
A bit OT, The alarmistas just keeps the hilarity coming, courtesy WUWT. 🙂
12
This would be a bit sad, if their desperation wasn’t so bloody hilarious! 🙂
Reminds me of a joke where a cat and a rooster are shipwrecked on a desert island…….
21
Oldie ship wrecked on an Island joke.
If two men and woman were shipwrecked on an island;
If they were British they wouldn’t talk to one another as they hadn’t been introduced
If they were German, the two men would be too busy talking business to worry about the woman.
If they were Italian one of the men would kill the other.
If they were Spanish the woman would kill one of the men.
If they were French, there is no problem !!!
10
Just one small item from the “Washington Times” provides an illustration of the innumerable changes in tide gauge readings that can occur from totally unexpected and nearly always overlooked influences when you try to calibrate the surface height of an immense volume of always on the move water that is 1.335 billion cubic kilometres in volume and covers an area of 361,900,000 square kilometres
_________________________
Sea-level rise data based on shoddy science
[ selected quote ]
In Atlantic City, for example, coastal engineer Cyril Galvin says the tide gauge data may be too sensitive to local and regional activities that aren’t ultimately related to “natural” changes in sea level — including any that might be related to greenhouse gas-induced global warming.
In examining sea-level changes for 100 years or more from stations on the Eastern Seaboard, Mr. Galvin could not find any acceleration in sea-level rise. University of Florida professor Robert Dean and Army Corps of Engineers analyst James Houston have independently reached this same conclusion.
While examining tide gauge records from Atlantic City’s Steel Pier, Mr. Galvin discovered a remarkable effect apparently caused by spectators who came to watch horse-diving between 1929 and 1978. From old photographs, it was estimated that there must have been about 4,000 spectators who would come to watch. Given that this crowd probably weighed about 150 tons, the pier was subject to significant loading and unloading cycles. The initial 1912-1928 data showed the sea level rising at a rate of 0.12 inches per year. The rate tripled around 1929 when the horses began diving. When the shows were suspended from 1945 to 1953, sea level fell at a rate of 0.06 inches per year. When the diving resumed, the sea level rose again at a rate of 0.16 inches per year.
Such clear documentation of the direct influence of local weight loading and unloading activities on tide gauge reading should add a cautionary note to connecting tide gauge data series to man-made greenhouse gas global warming phenomena.
[ / ]
51
As sea level rise is intimately linked with geology then listen first to the geologists.
From my observations on the various skeptic web site commentary;
1 / Engineers are the biggest skeptics and most scathing critics of the climate modellers entire claims as well as the most scathing about climate modellers programming and modeling skills.
And thats based on very hard earned experience. For if an engineer’s modeling is wrong, bridges collapse. aircraft crash and break up, cars and trains leave the road way and crash and burn, people die and will do so in large numbers if the engineers get their modeling even slightly wrong
2 / Geologists are amongst the biggest skeptics of the alarmist global warming meme.
After all, in the long term view Geologists are the ultimate climate scientists.
The very rocks they study are a direct outcome of long ago and sometimes very recent geologically speaking, happenings in the global climate from solar, wind, rain erosion effects to volcanic upheavals, tectonic plate movements and the climate consequences of that, dust storm deposits from wind, erosion from rain and snow and solar break down of rocks and soil from regular solar induced temperature changes on a daily, and centuries long eras.
All recorded almost permanently for posterity in the rocks and strata of our world for geologists to examine, interpret and draw conclusions from.
If a geologist makes a statement about the past climate, his / her versions will have far more veracity than a claim from a climate scientist on the direction of past global climates.
If an engineers heap scorn or praise on a climate modellers efforts and their climate models view the climate modelers and his / her models according to the opinion of the engineers.
They been there and done that and have learn’t the hard way over the last couple of centuries what works and what doesn’t.
42
Engineers… as in engineers that build things.. NOT Environmental Engineers !!!
22
And they will be able to support their claims with rock-hard evidence.
21
It is hard to be convinced that we understand sea levels when the oceans do not react like a normal bucket of water. For example, the world is not a sphere and is 40km flatter at the poles, but the water is not 40km deep there. Centripetal force, but the water has to go somewhere downhill. All the low level ice in the Northern Hemisphere melts, right across Siberia and Canada, but the seas hardly change in northern capitals from winter to summer, from Helsinki to London. The sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic are anticyclic, a maximum in one matching exactly a minimum in the other. Why? The 1mm a year in a fluid which is on average 4km deep? 1×10-3/4×106 =.25 x 10-9 which is effectively zero. Not what we would get from heating of the deep oceans. Expansion is negative at 4C. 1×10-4 at 10C. It indicates that there is no thermal expansion or perhaps the frozen runoff also shrinks the oceans each summer?
Anyone brave enough to connect current ultra slow sea rises to a warming world better have a few answers ready.
11
Sorry. .25 x 10-6. per degree C.
Also as area does not change, this is just linear expansion.
00
meanwhile, at Reuters & already published in Scientific American, the following:
25 Aug: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Small island states, facing rising seas, seek economic overhaul
(Editing by Andrew Heavens)
“Frightening” prospect of rising seas – U.N.
Islands say overlooked, fault inaction over climate
Small island summit in Samoa from Sept. 1-4
Small island states facing a “frightening” rise in sea levels will seek investments in everything fron solar energy to fisheries to boost their economies at a U.N. summit next week….
Many islands from the Indian Ocean to the Caribbean are suffering erosion and coastal flooding from storm surges as global warming raises sea levels by melting ice from the Himalayas to Greenland…
Sea levels have risen about 20 cms (8 inches) since 1900 and are projected to rise by another 26 to 82 cms by the late 21st century, threatening many low-lying atolls.
Some communities are even moving. The authorities of Choiseul, a provincial capital in the Solomon Islands with about 1,000 people, said this month that they had decided to relocate from their small island.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/08/25/environment-islands-idINL5N0QV1NP20140825
expect this in the rest of the MSM by the end of the day.
00
“…sea level rises and falls are very common, and that correcting for them is risky.”
(Unless you need to follow an agenda; in which case it’s imperative.)
00
Steffen, Hughes and Flannery in “sad” black and white:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/sad_people_are_sad/
10
They seem to be purposely painting big targets on their foreheads and on their backsides ! 🙂
00
The early movies of the Three Stooges were in black and white Griss.
The Keystone Cops too.
00
Totally validates the work of Hunter, Coleman and Pugh at the southern hemisphere’s oldest tidal gauge.
But the CSIRO maintains that the increase is double the record.
Must be those pesky adjustments!
The CSIRO does not make mistakes – Surely!
00
I think you would find that many Australian tide gauges fluctuate a lot. A change in the wind can change the tide level.
This is why an overall average is the best way to make an assessment.
00
Thanks for this, Jo. I was wondering what the latest news was for sea levels.
After all, it was rising sea levels that were the measure of their global catastrophe.
01
The entire global measure of sea level seems to me like a dogs breakfast, all over the place, I take it with a pinch of salt, doubting if anyone has any real clue.
00
[…] Here’s a novel approach. Beenstock et al wondered if tide gauges were placed in any old spot around the world or were biased toward area where sea-level did more rising. […]
00
It doesn’t surprise me since we really haven’t heard of anywhere that went missing due to sea level rise have we?
Another failed AGW prediction.
00
I love coming to these sites because then I don’t have to listen to NOAA, NASA, NCAR or the meteorological services and national academies of science of every advanced nation on the planet. All I need are the enlightened wisdom of the posters and the knuckle-draggers who spew out the predictable pap. What a farce!
03
MoS
Please show me scientifically-analysed data to explain the global warming pause for the last 15+ years.
I and many other scientists now disbelieve the alarming ends of IPCC-linked climate computer models and their input assumptions.
Your sweeping reference sources and their outputs to date are inadequate in their attempts to convince healthy sceptical science, which otherwise could be assured.
00
“knuckle-draggers”
Then stand up straight and lift up your arms, monkey-brain !
00
I guess you didn’t notice that you did exactly what you accuse us of doing. What are we to think of your contribution to the “pap”?
00
I didn’t think of this before but if there are trendless changes as described under that nice little map of North America, it doesn’t provide the alarmists with anything to complain about. So seize on 1 mm per year where it can be found and never mind that it’s meaningless, then complain loudly.
Meanwhile, at that rate I’d feel safe buying beachfront property in Malibu (if not for the winter storms of course).
00
The entire problem with this debate is you simply can’t reason with an alarmist. When I cite the paper by Houston and Dean to them, they will likely respond something like “Wait until the West Antarctic ice shelf collapses. Then we’ll all be swimming to work!”
10