Hiding the decline down under – inconvenient papers censored

UPDATE: An Australian science paper I located from 1990 says that century scale sea level trends are 1-1.1 mm per year, and Sydney was 0.54 mm/ year. See below.

UPDATE2: a graph of the current SLR for Sydney is now available. See below.

From the Australian Telegraph:

SENIOR bureaucrats in the state government’s environment department have routinely stopped publishing scientific papers which challenge the federal government’s claims of sea level rises threatening Australia’s coastline, a former senior public servant said yesterday.

Doug Lord helped prepare six scientific papers which examined 120 years of tidal data from a gauge at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour.

The tide data revealed sea levels were rising at a rate of about 1mm a year or less – and the rise was not accelerating but was constant.

“The tidal data we found would mean sea levels would rise by about 100mm by the end of the century,” Mr Lord said yesterday.

“However the (federal) government benchmark which drives their climate change policy is that sea levels are expected to rise by 900mm by the end of the century and the rate of rise is accelerating.”

Mr Lord, who has 35 years experience in coastal engineering, said senior bureaucrats within the then Department of Environment Climate Change and Water had rejected or stopped publication of five papers between late 2009 and September this year.

Full story at: Australian Telegraph

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

This paper by E.A Bryant in 1990 at the University of New South Wales has some interesting things to say. http://ojs.library.unsw.edu.au/index.php/wetlands/article/viewFile/166/228

UPDATE2: David Archibald provides this graph of Sea Level Rise for Sydney, Ft. Dennison from the long term data. The .5 mm trend/year shown above in the 1990 Bryant paper still holds. There does not appear to be any evidence of acceleration.

The NSW Govt. has a page for Fort Denison but you have to contact a data manager for the data: http://canri.nsw.gov.au/nrdd/records/ANZNS0001005063.html#metainfo

Advertisements

142 thoughts on “Hiding the decline down under – inconvenient papers censored

  1. Given Gillard’s Carbon tax – against the will of the people – the government down under had to make sure that everything else “proves” their lie.

  2. I think it is pretty obvious that the rate of sea level rise, averaged out, has been approximately the same for several thousand years.
    We are near the top of the sea level maximum you’d expect to see at this point in our cycle – it simply can’t go up “much” further. We’ll “soon” go into another glacial maximum and it’ll plummet.
    Worries about sea level rise are simply ridiculous.

  3. I am shocked, shocked that the politicians would suppress evidence that would tend to run counter to their rhetoric.

  4. Along with the research support, i.e. funding by politicians, come the politicization of science related issues and unfortunately the science itself. That politicization moves from the monied and privileged class to the desks of the political class. It is the price we, our societies, pay for the ends justifying the means.

  5. The discontinuity in the record around 1949 makes me wonder whether they changed their instrument or the placement of the gauge. If so, the true mean sea level change might be about zero or perhaps slightly negative.

  6. Silencing dissenting opinions … where have I seen this before?
    And in science, not politics … or is it politics?

  7. I notice the Australian government are proposing a 20% increase in salary. This will nicely cover the additional cost of carbon measures. Typical of greenies. They want everyone else to pay for their extravagance. No sacrifice required from them. GK

  8. Sea level trends were pretty consistent from 1993 until late 2005 and then they went flat, no sea level rise until 2008. Then they started rising again until 2010 and have gone flat again in 2011.
    The trend in sea level rise has flattened (reduced) in the five years since 2006.

  9. The tide data revealed sea levels were rising at a rate of about 1mm a year or less – and the rise was not accelerating but was constant.
    Saved! Now those “climate refugees” will only have to run 1 mm/yr. to escape, before it’s too late!

  10. Btw a recent article on sea level by Nils-Axel Mörner:
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml
    “My latest project was a field expedition to India, to the coast of Goa, combining observations with archeological information. Our findings are straightforward: there is no ongoing sea level rise. The sea level there has been stable for the last 50 years or so, after falling some 20cm in around 1960; it was well below the present level in the 18th century and some 50 to 60cm above the present in the 17th century. So it is clear that sea levels rise and fall entirely independently of so-called ‘climate change’.”

  11. kin2000, if the papers were never published or were “withdrawn” then there will not likely be any links to the papers.

  12. As the trend shown by E.A Bryant in 1990 was prepared with actual observations (as I cannot believe modeling was big at the time!) would it not follow that it is more believable?
    That the state would suppress contrary opinion and scientific investigation is more than ominous!
    I sure hope Australians come to their senses next election. Like the Canadians.
    Maybe someone could tell me, though, why would there be varying increases or lack of increase in sea level around a single relatively small continent?

  13. In order to determine actual correlation Rsquare between warming as determined and reported here
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
    and leaf area index (LAI) as shown in picture of earth here
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
    I need the actual measured results for LAI & Longitude/Latitude
    Can anyone here help me get these results or get into contact with the authors?>

  14. Excellent article at Dr. Judith Curry’s
    http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
    One thing I find interesting is that she notes fairly early in the article one of the same things I have noted:

    Dr Mann’s view that the climate had been relatively stable until man interfered with it in recent times, through excessive co2 emissions, became quickly accepted, as noted here by the UK Met office, a prime contributor through the Hadley centre to the IPCC assessments, who assert:
    “Before the twentieth century, when man-made greenhouse gas emissions really took off, there was an underlying stability to global climate. The temperature varied from year to year, or decade to decade, but stayed within a certain range and averaged out to an approximately steady level.” (12)

    That is a key point in the entire propaganda war. They want you to believe that climate was basically stable and became unstable recently. Dr. Curry goes on to show a different view of things.

  15. No-one should think for a moment that it’s just our Australian cousins who are being shafted by their government in this way. Is it really conceivable that papers are kept out of journals without the tacit agreement of the authorities?

  16. The big stifling in Oz is that of free speech. Gillard’s new law makes it illegal to state the effects of her carbon tax on prices. Maximum fine: $1,100,000

  17. @crosspatch
    yes, that’s a fascinating article, I’d just linked it on WUWT’s “tips and notes” before I saw that you linked it here….. one correction, it’s not by Judith Curry but by Tony Brown, and she posts a standard disclaimer that says she does not necessarily endorse any particulars simply b/c she’s posted the article…. but in any case it does fill in some fascinating context and detail…..

  18. re: Judith Curry’s posting of the Tony Brown article, for sake of accuracy:
    “JC note: For the last several months, Tony has been sending me snippets from his research. I find the climate-history nexus to be fascinating. I offered to post this on Climate Etc. As with all guest posts, the views expressed here are those of Tony Brown, and my publishing this here does not imply any endorsement by myself.”

  19. Dr Peter Flood has showed that sea levels in Oz have fallen over the past couple of thousand years.

    Which makes perfect sense since over the past 2000 years, while we have had some ups and downs, we are generally in a cooling trend.

  20. G. Karst says:
    December 1, 2011 at 9:29 am
    “I notice the Australian government are proposing a 20% increase in salary. ”
    Julia promised that the revenue from the Carbon Tax would be finding its ways to the population, she just didn’t say on exactly which way.

  21. The altitude of Toronto Canada is increasing by 25 mm/year, still rebounding from loss of the ice sheet which melted 14,000 years ago. Compare that to the miniscule 3.2 mm/yr sea level rise which is not accelerating due to man (at least not accelerating over the last 30 years).

  22. Here is a graph referenced in the paper published today on Dr. Curry’s blog that shows a temperature reconstruction of the Alps in Europe going back 7000 years. A cooling trend can be clearly seen in the past 2000 years:
    http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi4_vs_patzelt_dsh1.jpg
    If this isn’t just a local phenomenon, which I believe it not to be local because we see glacial variation in North America at about the same time as that of the Alps, then I would expect sea levels to generally reflect the advance and retreat of Holocene glaciers.
    That sea levels in Australia would generally reflect the decline of temperatures over the past 2000 years (albeit with variability reflecting the variability of temperatures) would be no surprise to me.

  23. This is the equivalent of lying to the public by suppressing the advancement of science and the truth to avoid the consequences of unpopular legislation promoting a political agenda. The suppression of reviewed scientific work for such a reason is a form of persecution.
    Shades of the trial of Galileo Galilei in 1633 .

  24. Dr Burns said…
    “The big stifling in Oz is that of free speech. Gillard’s new law makes it illegal to state the effects of her carbon tax on prices. Maximum fine: $1,100,000”
    Burns, could you (or anyone else) provide any links or sources to back this statement up? I’m intrigued

  25. Julia Gillard introduced the tax based on a scam with a big fat lie. “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”.
    Australia are not in the top 5 at Durban, we are alone with the tax, bring on the election.

  26. STATE government bureaucrats have stopped publishing scientific papers which challenge Journalism School graduates’ claims about pictures of darkening steam featured in CO2 articles.
    Fixed, for the gullible readers of this Sydney newspaper.

  27. It is so obvious that this is political suicide that the question should be, what is it we do not see. What is the real plan behind this act.Call it conspiracy thinking ,But what if I’m right !

  28. Thank you everyone for the links 🙂 Obviously none of you are climate scientists, what with your willingness to share information with those that enquire 😉 Chortle chortle 🙂

  29. Ray says:
    December 1, 2011 at 10:57 am

    Is it the sea that is rising at 1 mm/year or less or is Australia sinking at that rate?

    I can assure you Ray, with the Labor party in Government and the Greens with the balance of power, my beautiful Lucky Country is sinking at a much much faster rate than that.

  30. crosspatch says:
    Dr Peter Flood has showed that sea levels in Oz have fallen over the past couple of thousand years…
    +++++
    And in another case of nominative determinism (which abound in Oz for some reason) Dr Flood says sea levels in Australia….
    You think we didn’t notice?
    🙂

  31. It is in line with what is shown by envisat “the inconvenient satellite”. Steven has several posts on it:
    http://www.real-science.com/hiding-inconvenient-satellite
    If one posts only envisat and removes all adjustments it gives a sea level rise of 0,33 mm – 3,3 cm per century!
    One can select time series, envisat, gia not applied, seasonal signals not removed, inverted barometer correction not applied:
    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html
    Interesting.

  32. This is a little off topic, maybe maybe not. As I check your site on a daily basis and other sites; be it on this side of the AGW debate or on the other side of the debate, I noticed there has been little activity at Realclimate and Tamino’s blog and for some reason I cannot access desmogblog, but there vitriol seems accessible under the monicker “Progressive Blogger”. Any thoughts on the silence or they busy at Durban?

  33. You have to laugh. Dump ARGO in the water, the more accurate and comprehensive the measurements get, the deeper we have to dive looking for that “missing heat”. At some point someone on the team might have to admit that current models are crap. Satellites, ARGO and Balloons all say CO2 doesn’t govern planetary surface temperatures but, then again, we can’t figure a way to make money out of the 1.4 billion cubic Km of liquid GHG that actually does.

  34. Nick Shaw says:
    December 1, 2011 at 10:29 am

    Maybe someone could tell me, though, why would there be varying increases or lack of increase in sea level around a single relatively small continent?
    =============
    When dealing with sea levels, we are operating at or beyond the practical limits of resolution for both tidal gauges and satellites. The problem with tidal gauges is that the continents are not really stable platforms. At the resolution of mm per year, it is very hard to tell if the sea level is rising/dropping or the tidal gauge is sinking/rising. With satellites, we have to use averaging to remove wave height effects, etc. While we are averaging a lot of points (millions) it is not clear that all are well behaved. Mathematicians tend to believe that Central Limit Theory conquers all such concerns. Most — perhaps. All — a bit of skepticism may be justified.

  35. UPDATE: An Australian science paper I located from 1990 says that century scale sea level trends are 1-1.1 mm per year, and Sydney was 0.54 mm/ year. See below
    If it keeps going like this I will be able to surf downhill to Sydney.
    What happened to “water finds it’s own level”

  36. re: kwik says:
    December 1, 2011 at 1:31 pm
    If the massive unprecedented worldwide ago buoys project showed anything helpful to advancing the CAGW we would be inundated with press releases and articles about it…. instead, we have years of what would seem to be a rather reassuring LACK of any hint of CAGW….. so of course the information is ignored and buried.
    Just another indication that the CAGW fanatics have a peculiar statist agenda which is not “all about the science”

  37. From John Daly’s wonderful account of the Ross-Lempriere sea level benchmark on the `Isle of the Dead’ situated within the harbor of Port Arthur in southeastern Tasmania.

    In the photo above, the line and arrow mark is a standard British Ordnance Survey Benchmark, 50 cm across, and is standing in the photo about 35 cm above the water level. Since the photo was deliberately taken at the time of mean or half-tide for that day, we see in this one photo the enigma that is the `Isle of the Dead’. Because, how can a benchmark struck at “zero point” or the “mean level of the sea”, as described so explicitly by Ross, now be 35 cm above the mean level today? Has the sea level fallen?
    ……
    The benchmark powerfully confirms what the Australian Mean Sea Level Survey [29] tells us, namely that the rate of sea level rise over much of the 20th century has only been +0.16 mm/yr, less than one tenth of the IPCC’s estimate of 1.8 mm/yr. This survey would imply a sea level rise of only +1.6 cm for the whole century, consistent with observations and measurements of the Ross-Lempriere benchmark since Capt. Shortt first observed it in 1888.
    http://www.john-daly.com/ges/msl-rept.htm

  38. if you look at the smiling goose on the telegraph front page with the boat people behind her THAT,S RIGHT SHE IS OUR SO CALLED LEADER ?
    right at this time their is a labour convention over three days at darling harbour all it will produce is a lot of hot air . god save australia WE NEED HELP FROM THE FREE WORLD TO GET HER OUT OF OUR LIVES

  39. Ray says:
    December 1, 2011 at 10:57 am
    Is it the sea that is rising at 1 mm/year or less or is Australia sinking at that rate?

    Not likely according to this:

    jrwakefield says:
    August 19, 2011 at 6:26 am
    … measurements from stable cratons are as close as you are going to get at measuring sea level, as opposed to land movement. South Australia is one, South Africa is another, south India may be another. There is little tectonic vertical motion at those places.
    ===============================================
    Baa Humbug says:
    December 1, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Ray says:
    December 1, 2011 at 10:57 am
    Is it the sea that is rising at 1 mm/year or less or is Australia sinking at that rate?

    I can assure you Ray, with the Labor party in Government and the Greens with the balance of power, my beautiful Lucky Country is sinking at a much much faster rate than that.

    The leaky country?

  40. Coke says:
    December 1, 2011 at 12:21 pm
    Dr Burns said…
    “The big stifling in Oz is that of free speech. Gillard’s new law makes it illegal to state the effects of her carbon tax on prices. Maximum fine: $1,100,000″
    Burns, could you (or anyone else) provide any links or sources to back this statement up? I’m intrigued

    We had a thread here on that two weeks ago:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/i-blame-the-australian-carbon-tax-for-price-increases/

  41. I have to wonder if all this unilateral government control would be taking place now if there hadn’t been the massive Australian gun grab in 1996.
    Now you know why they had one.
    At least your violent crime rate has dropped… oh, it went up? Hmmm that sucks.

  42. Given the rate at which Oz is busily digging up its country and shipping it offshore in 100,000 tonne loads, its is probably undergoing man made isostatic uplift, hence the low rates of net sea level rise. Sarc off!

  43. Can anyone tell me the difference between Climatology and Climastrology?.It seems to me that Climatology quickly turns into Climastrology,Is Climastrology a higher grade than Climatology?Is there a PhD in Climastrology?.Enlighten me please.

  44. You’ve all missed the newsworthy aspect of this. Establishment pseudoscientists have been stifling real science for many decades. Not news.
    This fact has been known and spread among the community of blogs and ‘new media’ for about 10 years. Also not news.
    What’s news: A major national newspaper is breaking the story instead of aiding the conspiracy of censorship!

  45. I have a question. People are discussing the numbers around 0.54 mm/year. But, according to Figure 2, isn’t the r-squared value of sea level rise at Sydney at 0.24?
    Doesn’t that mean that the 0.54mm/year is insignificant over the last 100 years?

  46. Gillard strategy is a glimpse of what’s awaiting populations in countries that condone the eco-totalitarian agenda. The Green police will do just as the language police does in Quebec.
    Beware of who you are electing at every level of government… One can hope that unlike in Canada where green peddlers like Charest, McGuinty or Robertson are re-elected by complacent voters, Australians will inflict the most cruel electoral defeat to Gillard and her minions.

  47. Mr.D.Imwit says:
    December 1, 2011 at 4:37 pm
    Can anyone tell me the difference between Climatology and Climastrology?.It seems to me that Climatology quickly turns into Climastrology,Is Climastrology a higher grade than Climatology?Is there a PhD in Climastrology?.Enlighten me pleas

    Someone here suggested referring to them as climatologers, not climatologists.

  48. The lie of sea level rise can be seen in the British Admiralty Charts drawn 200+ years ago. They are still accurate today to within 1 foot, which is the limit of their tidal resolution.
    These are the most accurate records on earth of past global sea levels. Ignored by Climate Science because they don’t show the correct result.
    Instead we have Mann using sea shells in sediment along a sinking sea shore, as a modern day tea leaves, to determine past sea levels. Why? Because these records show what Mann seeks to prove. The records that show otherwise, these must be hidden.
    Hide the decline, hide the facts, hide the science. Make way for superstition. The climate is changing and humans are the cause. $acrifice is required to appease the god$.

  49. Instead we have Mann using sea shells in sediment along a sinking sea shore, as a modern day tea leaves, to determine past sea levels. Why?

    Because the whole thing is working exactly backwards from how it is supposed to work. Rather than noticing any extreme climate change, sea level rise, atmospheric heating, etc. and attempting to come up with a hypothesis that describes why that might be happening, they trotted out a hypothesis first … that greenhouse gasses would warm the planet … and have been attempting to make the data fit. So the observational data are being made to fit the hypothesis rather than the hypothesis being developed to fit the observation. It is absolute lunacy. GISS and CRU develop models that show how the planet would warm and are also responsible for the temperature data bases that would verify the models. It’s nuts. AND those very models are responsible for them getting millions of dollars to their institutions for research grants and jaunts to Tahiti.
    There are some very simple places where their lies are vulnerable.
    Lie #1: Climate was stable for a thousand years before we started burning fossil fuel.
    This is untrue an can be (and has been over and over again) documented to be a lie. See Dr. Judith Curry’s blog post of today as one example.
    Lie #2: Seas are rising an in accelerating rate.
    This is untrue and in fact the opposite is true. Since 2005 the rate of sea level rise has reduced by about half though this might be temporary, we don’t now. The point is that the rate of sea level rise isn’t stable. It changes over time.
    Lie #3: Greenhouse warming is causing surface temperatures to rise.
    This requires atmospheric warming to re-radiate heat back to the surface. There is no such atmospheric warming and in fact the atmosphere right now is pretty darned cold in the context of satellite measurements since 2002.
    Lie #4: Extreme weather events are increasing due to global warming.
    This can be documented to show exactly the opposite. In fact, during the Little Ice Age central Europe (Germany) experienced a storm which dropped 1 foot of hail destroying the crops along a swath of over a hundred miles. Many such extreme weather events happened during the Little Ice Age. The amount of tropical storm energy has been in decline for several years.
    Lie #5: The current rate of temperature rise is unprecedented and results from CO2 emissions.
    What is responsible, then, for the initial rise out of the LIA to about the 1930’s before we were releasing so much CO2?
    They are standing on VERY thin ice and they know it. This is why they have to be so careful in the weasel words used in the IPCC reports, for example. Their various reports and press releases MUST be balanced with the observational data that shows that these things that are forecast to happen have NOT happened.

  50. Actually, I found this linked at the Bishop Hill blog:

    The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment claimed that ‘there is strong evidence’ of sea level rising over the last few decades. It goes as far as to claim: ‘Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation, and indicate that similar rates have occurred in some earlier decades.’
    Almost every word of this is untrue. Satellite altimetry is a wonderful and vital new technique that offers the reconstruction of sea level changes all over the ocean surface. But it has been hijacked and distorted by the IPCC for political ends.
    In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’
    This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong (whose record is contradicted by four other nearby tide gauges). Why does it show such a rise? Because like many of the 159 tide gauge stations used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it is sited on an unstable harbour construction or landing pier prone to uplift or subsidence. When you exclude these unreliable stations, the 68 remaining ones give a present rate of sea level rise in the order of 1mm a year.

    Read the whole article here:
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml
    It’s all gobsmacking a stuff. I hope the climatologers don’t find it too vexing.

  51. You have a “Climate Change Commissioner”?
    Oh, my goodness. How much is THAT costing Australia? How many people in that office? Is it an entire department of government? Oh, it appears worse than I thought: “Department of Climate Change”! http://www.climatechange.gov.au/ Oh, good grief. These people are absolutely robbing the Australian taxpayer! You have an entire government department based on fiction. Sure, climate is changing, it always does, but there is absolutely nothing that the government of Australia is going to do about that, one way or the other, no matter how much money it spends. All of their efforts will make no difference and no effort at all will make no difference. Australia can absolutely not make an iota of difference in the global atmosphere no matter WHAT it does.
    I read an article today on another blog where a military installation spent $3.1 million on a solar array that is expected to save taxpayers $55,400 per year. Sounds like a good deal until you consider that had they taken that $3.1 million into town to the local bank and obtained a certificate of deposit at 2.5% they would generate $77,500 per year AND help the local economy.

  52. Re having to contact a data manager for tide gauge information, instead of just putting it on the net, climate data has become a state secret in Australia.

  53. “crosspatch says:
    December 1, 2011 at 9:36 pm
    You have a “Climate Change Commissioner”?”
    Yup! Tim Flannery holds this, part-time position, and is paid AU$180k p/a. Not a bad earner if you can get on the AGW gravy train. He also has a waterfront property, recenty purchased too. He also has stated that we’re all going to die from AGW, and this decade is THE decade of action against climate change.
    On Channel 7 news tonight, rare snow in Nevada, US. Yes, the world is warming.

  54. There is snow in Nevada, the global tropical storm energy is near record lows, it has been over 2000 days since a Category 3 storm has struck the US, it’s just crazy. There really is no observational evidence of any of their dire predictions coming true. But that doesn’t seem to matter, one must “believe”.

  55. What these politicians are doing is actually extremely dangerous for several reasons. First, they are spending a very large amount of money in times of economic uncertainty. This money is going toward things that will make absolutely no difference whatsoever on a global scale. The economy could better use that money for other things. This is what amounts to economic sabotage of the Western world. Second, when this is fully exposed for the scam that it is, people are going to be much less likely to believe warnings of an actual impending emergency pointed out by scientists. They are going to respond with “oh, yes, just like ‘Global Warming’ was such a dire emergency” and not respond as they should. Third, there is evidence that exactly the opposite of global warming is happening over the longer term and we may well be entering into a time of significantly cooler temperature if some recently published papers are to be believed. We have evidence that temperature overall has been in decline for about the last 2000 years. Yes, we have warm periods but it seems that each one “tops out” a little cooler than the one before it. We have a paper published that seems to show a correlation between decreased UV radiation from the sun and how the AO/NAO respond. We have a second paper published yesterday that shows certain indications from the sun that we may be headed for a deeper minimum than the Dalton and could be headed for something more like the Maunder minimum. If this is true, then we are possibly going to face some serious hardships from global cooling.
    It is frustrating enough that these people go on like they do about this AGW nonsense in the face of observational data to the contrary, it is even worse that it may be blinding them to what actually might be headed our way. Countries such as Canada and Russia are going to face serious hardships if climate cools even a little. Places already right on the edge of being able to bring in a crop are possibly going to find they are unable to feed themselves.
    Yes, we just had a warm period. It seems to have flattened out after 1998 with temperatures since then actually trending down a little (MSU satellite data). Sea level rise has flattened, Solar activity has declined. Tropical storm activity has declined. All the observational indications are pointing more toward cooling than warming. NONE of the programs put forth by the “climate change industry” positions us for that reality. Adaptation to a degree of cooling is MUCH HARDER than adaptation to a degree of warming.
    These people are doing our populations a huge disservice. They need to be stopped.

  56. Hey crosspatch… Australia has an entire department of Climate Change with several hundred employees. Annual cost $90 million. That is entirely separate from the Climate Commissioner. It’s big business in Australia….

  57. The BoM has an array of 14 SEAFRAME stations around Australia monitoring sea levels since 1991 but they also record other data such as sea surface air temperatures supposedly not affected by UHI. If anybody’s interested, I’ve charted all the sea surface air temperatures at http://www.waclimate.net/sea/sea-air-temperatures.html, including Google sat pics of the recording areas.
    The combined trends might suggest a .2C increase in sea surface air temps since 1991. However, it’s worth looking closer at the station data:
    • The general trend was for northern warm latitudes in Australia to have cooling sea air temperatures, in line with records from the land stations, with southern stations increasing in temperature. All three Western Australia stations are stable or slightly cooler since 1991.
    • The overall increase was mostly because of Australia’s south east quarter, the exception being the Cocos Islands. For example, Portland Victoria sea air temperatures would seem to have gone up by about 1C since 1995, albeit only a figure pulled from a trendline.
    • The intensity and proximity of nearby industrial, port and urban development may have an influence, although it’s difficult to tell without figuring out the prevailing winds.

  58. The inherent problems in measuring sea levels overwhelm any rational discussion of the matter. Even if accuracy is somehow obtained, so what? What causes it will still be a mystery, surrounded by an intrigue, and explicable in only the vaguest of terms. Governmental action will certainly have no effect whatsoever on the sea level change. But any such governmental action will affect people in other immeasurable ways with consequences that should be avoided.

  59. last year the govt had an online survey about coastal dwelling/sea rises/insurance/
    it was a total farce ALL questions geared to the “you accept it going to rise” baseline.
    since then they have been Removing people from coastal areas, refusing building permits any damn thing they can to get PRIME seafront land back in ownership of the govt.
    so when it all falls over(well it HAS) but when a lot more wake up to the fact its getting COOLER, and its all a bloody lie. then watch the extremely well off folks grab all that land.
    like grabbing land for eco saviours then banning almost all public access BUT making massively high priced eco tourism deals with select ecogroups…
    in the meantime the Insurance companies are Loving it!! massive hike in any coastal insurances.
    a gullible friend said sea rise Must be true…because the insurers were accounting for it.
    with thinking like that and the Liar in power till we can get her out!!!! its looking grim in my land.
    re Bom and accessing files, yeah they also removed the really HOT weather of the 30s OFF the accesible pages and hid it in obscure formats around Copenhagen time.

  60. Once again, it all comes down to money. State governments in Australia will do just about anything to get money from the Feds. In this case, there were bucketloads on offer provided the State governments went along with the climate alarmism meme. So they did. Just like the Greeks lying about the accounts to get into the EU (with resultant bucketloads of money), the New South Wales government had no qualms about lying about sea levels.
    Everywhere you look, the AGW gravy train has spawned corruption. Yet believers imagine that they are purer than the rest of us. ‘Cognitive dissonance’ is barely adequate to describe what is going on here.

  61. How do they measure sea level when it’s slopping around all the time? Especially to the precision of 1mm? Do they measure it at the same place on the planet every time? Do they do it at high tide, low tide, or somewhere in between? On a hot day or a cold day (expansion/contraction)? In exactly the same wind conditions (wind-driven)? Do they check the tectonic plates haven’t given it a bit of a boost?! Seems to me an impossible thing to measure with any accuracy.

  62. Chris Gillham says:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/01/hiding-the-decline-down-under-inconvenient-papers-censored/#comment-815953
    Henry@Chris
    Nice work. I’ve done analyses of two stations there, namely Christchurch and Brisbane.
    I found cooling since 1975, namely -0.005 degrees C/annum in Christchurch and -0.001 degrees C/annum in Brisbane.
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
    (you have to study the tables)
    So no warming on the east coast there.
    I am willing to bet that when I take a look on the west coast, things might be different.
    I am expecting to see some warming there,
    because it seems there is a correlation of the warming/cooling with the increase or decrease in the leaf area index (LAI)
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
    To finalize this matter, in terms of establishing an actual correlation coefficient, I need to get the actual values of the LAI. Does somebody here know where I can get this, or how to contact the writers (Liu et al)?

  63. David Archibald’s “trend” of 0.5 mm/year is rubbish. Even a reasonably knowledgeable high school student could tell you, just by looking at the Archibald’s “fitted” line that it IS NOT a best fit. It looks as if he has just taken a rough line between the end points. A linear least-squares fit to the 1915-2009 data has a trend of 0.89 mm/year, which is way above his quoted 0.5 mm/year.
    Bryant, of course, did it correctly using linear least-squares fitting. If you extend the data out to 2010, the linear least-squares fit (1886-2010) is 0.62 mm/year (i.e. LARGER than his value which was over the shorter period, 1886-1988).
    If you really want to look for an acceleration (but lets face it – anyone who knows anything about sea level knows that we have already experienced a substantial acceleration from an almost stable sea level over the 2000 years prior to the 19th century) let’s just split the 1886-2010 record into two: (1886-1948) and (1948-2010). These are the two trends:
    1886-1948: -0.32 mm/year (i.e. a sea-level FALL)
    1948-2010: 0.67 mm/year (a sea-level rise)
    which represents an ACCELERATION of about 1 mm/year over a period of about 60 years.
    But of course, as you see in this posting, you can cherry-pick your period to get pretty well any “trends” or “acceleration” you want. However, the fact remains that, if you take the longest available record for Fort Denison, divide it in half and compare the two trends, YOU GET A SUBSTANTIAL ACCELERATION.
    So, dear Anthony Watts, here is an apparent case of manipulation of data by either you or David Archibald. You show a plot and quote a quite erroneous “trend”. You both profess to have some knowledge in this field and yet you failed to notice or correct this glaring error. Will you do it now?

  64. John Hunter probably gets his sea level misinformation from the Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science blog. Sea levels have not been accelerating. Quite the opposite. The whole CAGW canard has been falsified so many times I don’t know why they still try to convince us that down is up, ignorance is strength, and global cooling is runaway global warming. Get a clue.

  65. Smokey – the data I used is simply the data used by Watts and Archibald and obtained from the same public sources. Go and insult them too if you want. If you think yourself capable of responding to my post then you should also be capable of checking my numbers. Please do it and tell us what you find.

  66. And also Smokey: you may not have noticed what I said in my original response in order to try and forestall time-wasting cherry-picking:
    > But of course, as you see in this posting, you can cherry-pick your period to get pretty well
    > any “trends” or “acceleration” you want.
    So what do you do in a discussion about century-long tide-gauge observations? That’s right, you become Exhibit A and produce (1) something which suggests a “deceleration” in sea level over the last 5 years (and then only if you cherry-pick one satellite out of three – the other two satellites suggest a deceleration over the past year only), and (2) a temperature (no – not sea level) record over a period of little over a year.
    So – the relevance of your response to the present discussion – NONE WHATSOEVER – which indicates why climate scientists such as myself generally avoid “discussions” on sites such as this.

  67. John Hunter says:
    So what do you do in a discussion about century-long tide-gauge observations?
    Henry@John
    Well John, I think what you could do, is work it out,
    and then compare it with the known past.
    For example, if this is your data,
    1886-1948: -0.32 mm/year (i.e. a sea-level FALL)
    1948-2010: 0.67 mm/year (a sea-level rise)
    then we can conclude the average over the past 124 years was a rise of 0.175 mm per annum.
    Do you agree?
    Now to compare this result with the known past, I am using the example of the South African coast line, where it has been determined that sea water levels were ca. 130 meters lower during the last glacial 20000 years ago than they are today. Shall we work that out? 130000mm/20000 = 6.5 mm /annum. So, on average, in the past 20000 years sea levels have risen by about 6.5 mm per annum.
    Mind you, it must perhaps be mentioned that there was a time during that past 20000 years that it warmed so much that levels were 30 meters higher than they are today, so the 6.5 mm rise per annum is just an average.
    (we are still talking about the SA coast line – my source is the book: Shoreline: Discovering South Africa’s coast)
    so your result of 0.175 mm up to 0.67 mm rise per year is nothing really special in terms “man made” climate change. It is completely within the realm of natural variability. Indeed, I determined that temperatures have been increasing in the past 4 decades due to natural factors. The extra greening of the planet is adding some extra warmth (the extra vegetation traps heat)
    I suggest you carefully study my tables here
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
    If you don’t like it here, why don’t you go to the Sceptical Science site? I have baptised them Gullible Science.

  68. I’m not a scientist, merely Joe Citizen, so this question may be wrongly stated, but here goes:
    I read such discussions and I keep wondering how it’s even possible to measure “sea level” down to less than one millimeter??
    My rough layman’s mind would think that the error of measurement is much more than one millimeter but what do I know?
    On a different note, I have not seen anything that makes me concerned that sea level is likely to rise more than a very small to modest amount in the next century, so I strongly suspect that the more “catastrophic” projections are being offered for political effect only. But that’s only one layman’s opinion which is wide open to new information credibly stated.

  69. Henry@Skiphil
    You are right of course, we cannot measure that accurate.
    I am also not an expert in this field but I suspect what they probably do is measure it over a decade or longer and then you average it out over years.
    I always say: climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.
    And sometimes the weather can be a bit rough, but I believe that is God’s way of keeping the planet habitable.
    However, there are now some people who call this rough weather: climate change
    so they can make lots of money…..
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

  70. HenryP: OK – you’re Exhibit B for my statement ‘but of course, as you see in this posting, you can cherry-pick your period to get pretty well any “trends” or “acceleration” you want’ – so you now go from a discussion of century-scale sea-level change to time scales of 20,000 years. So Exhibit A (Smokey) covers the last 5 years and you now complete the picture by going for the glacial cycles. You contrarians are so predictable.
    If you want to put some of these multiple time scales together look at Fig. 6.8 (and thereabouts) in the IPCC AR4 WG1 report (go to http://www.ipcc.ch).

  71. Henry@John
    John,
    if you want me to find something useful on the ipcc site you have to give me a more specific link.
    I don’t have hours to spend looking for your fig. 6.8
    In the 16th century there was a dutch sea farer with the name of Willem Barentz who was convinced from his “history” lessons that there was a way up north to the other side of the world. I am certain that he would not have risked his life unless he was certain about it. As we now know, it probably was open during the MWP, ca.500 or 600 years before he lived.
    I don’t think anyone here is denying that the extra warmth the planet is experiencing will cause some ice to melt and the sea water level to rise a bit.
    The question is: is the warming natural or is man taking a part in helping it along? If man is helping it along, the next question would be; what is the mechamism by which he is doing this?
    In trying to find an answer to that question I looked at all the popular blog sites, trying to find the warming trend in tandem with the increase in maxima and minima. I coould not find it. In the end I decided to do the work myself.
    The results were surpising. But I gather you are not interested in discussing my results?
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

  72. Henry@John
    I did study the Ipcc reorts 2005 and 2007 and found out that they looked at the problem from the wrong end. They assumed the extra warming is caused by the increase in GHG’s and calculated a forcing based on the the increase of the GHG since 1750.
    They first should have made the formula’s from S Arrhenius correct instead of looking to solve the problem from the wrong end?
    In effect, you are making the same mistake by refusing to see what your own results really mean if you put them on a wider time scale.

  73. HenryP: Your discussion is all a diversion from my original point, which was that there is a critical error in Anthony Watts’ original posting, in that the trend quoted for Archibald’s plot is nearly a factor of two too low. This is easily verified, by resorting to elementary statistics, not sophisticated climate science. Will it ever be corrected? I suspect not, as to do so would spoil a good story.

  74. John says:Your discussion is all a diversion from my original point
    Henry@John
    It was not. I did reply that the data you quoted actually worked out to an average of a little less than 0.2 mm /yr and I did ask you if you agreed. You did not reply to that question? I donot have access to the original data now, but I reckon that Archibald’s 0.5 mm per annum result (for a different, more recent period) is probably very much correct.
    You are confusing the whole issue by bringing in periods of fall and increase and then working out “acceleration”. He is not doing that and he is not pretending to be doing that. He is just analysing the data and he probably uses Excel to work out the linear trend – you cannot really make a mistake with that unless you are an idiot.
    Obviously you did not get that, and when I diverted to the whole issue of “man made” global warming (which apparently is not global, and which apparently seems to me to be caused by natural factors and a little bit by more vegetation), like an ostriche, you put your head in the soil, claiming this is too difficult for you….
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
    I am here to learn from you, if you have something to say that will challenge my way of thinking. Don’t irk us by claiming a few times it is no use discussing things here.

  75. crosspatch says:
    December 1, 2011 at 10:15 am
    kin2000, if the papers were never published or were “withdrawn” then there will not likely be any links to the papers. ” ]
    I’m sorry it took me so long to answer this post – I had an essay on Beowulf due 🙂
    My impression via Dr / Mr Lord’s statements: That these three papers were peer-reviewed – published and even sited on Government web pages etc….and then removed from the government pages., in order to support government actions.
    If that is the case – there should be some history available to find these.
    Way-back-Machine?
    xxxxxxxxx
    I enjoy your posts 🙂

  76. [ “Blocked sea-level research probed
    by:Imre Salusinszky
    From:The Australian December 05, 2011 12:00AM
    Increase Text Size
    Decrease Text Size
    Print
    NSW Environment Minister Robyn Parker has asked department officials to explain why they put the lid on internal research that questioned catastrophic predictions of sea-level rises as a result of climate change.
    A former senior researcher in the department, Doug Lord, said yesterday two papers he co-authored with colleagues and was due to present at conferences were suppressed because they suggested sea-levels on the east coast are rising at only one 10th of the rate estimated by the federal government, based on data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ” ]
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/blocked-sea-level-research-probed/story-fn59niix-1226213593352

  77. kim2ooo says:
    December 4, 2011 at 10:30 am
    I’m sorry it took me so long to answer this post – I had an essay on Beowulf due 🙂
    Can I read your essay somewhere on line? I am burnt out on emails. GK

  78. HenryP:
    > I did reply that the data you quoted actually worked out to an average of a little less
    > than 0.2 mm /yr and I did ask you if you agreed.
    I didn’t think I needed to agree that (0.76-0.32)/2 = 0.175, which is “a little less than 0.2”. However, this is irrelevant, because the way to estimate a trend for two joined records is NOT to average the trends of each of them – this is trivial statistics – you actually have to do a linear least-squares fit on the total record. The linear least-square trends for the two parts, and for the whole, are:
    1886-1948: -0.32 mm/year
    1948-2010: 0.67 mm/year
    1886-2010: 0.62 mm/year
    which is perhaps paradoxical to you but not to anyone who understands elementary curve-fitting.
    > I do not have access to the original data now
    It’s on the web and easy to find in a few minutes.
    > but I reckon that Archibald’s 0.5 mm per annum result (for a different, more recent
    > period) is probably very much correct.
    I wonder why on Earth you would think that – I’ve already told you that the linear least-squared trend for “Archibald’s” record is 0.89 mm/year.
    > He is just analysing the data and he probably uses Excel to work out the linear trend
    > – you cannot really make a mistake with that unless you are an idiot.
    Correct – Archibald is an idiot – I’ve heard him speak and seen what he writes.
    > you put your head in the soil, claiming this is too difficult for you….
    I don’t have the time to read every hair-brained climate theory that comes up on the web and to provide advice. If you have a serious theory, write it up as a paper and submit it for peer review with a reputable journal.
    And while all this discussion is going on, Anthony Watts has still not corrected the misinformation which gave rise to my original response – which is very telling.

  79. I wish we had global warming in sydney we are in the coldest start to summer in 51 years this morning 13 deg 7 below normal

  80. morgo: I sympathise – it’s freezing in Hobart too. But remember: this is “weather” and not “climate”!

  81. Henry@John&Morgo
    John, you must be doing something wrong, because if you do a trendline, plotting mm on the y-and years on the x -, without any prediction, (this is the least square fit for that line), then the slope of that trendline (the figure before the x ) is exactly the average rate of incline – or decline – if the slope is negative in mm per annum. You can calculate that average also normally, and if the figures you quoted are correct then it works out to 62 x 0.67 – 62 x 0.32 = 21.7. Take the 21.7 over 124 years and you get 0.175. This must be the slope you should be getting if you do a trendline over the whole of the period 1886-2010 unless the figures you quote me are not the slopes of incline / decline in mm/annum
    For example, for Morgo, I determined that the average temperatures (means) in December in Brisbane have declined by an average of -0.0154 degrees per annum since 1975.
    You should be able to find this figure somewhere in the table for means here:
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
    This means that temperatures there are now, on average, 0.539 degrees lower than they were 35 years ago. That is not “weather”, that is your climate. There is no global warming there. There never was. Sorry.

  82. Henry@John&Morgo
    John, you must be doing something wrong, because if you do a trendline, plotting mm on the y-and years on the x -, without any prediction, (this is the least square fit for that line), then the slope of that trendline (the figure before the x ) is exactly the average rate of incline – or decline – if the slope is negative in mm per annum. You can calculate that average also normally, and if the figures you quoted are correct then it works out to 62 x 0.67 – 62 x 0.32 = 21.7. Take the 21.7 over 124 years and you get 0.175. This must be the slope you should be getting if you do a trendline over the whole of the period 1886-2010 unless the figures you quote me are not the slopes of incline / decline in mm/annum for the periods that you mention.
    For example, for Morgo, I determined that the average temperatures (means) in December in Brisbane have declined by an average of -0.0154 degrees per annum since 1975.
    You should be able to find this figure somewhere in the table for means here:
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
    This means that temperatures there are now, on average, 0.5 degrees lower in December than they were 35 years ago. That is not “weather”, that is your climate. There is no global warming there. There never was. Sorry.

  83. HenryP:
    Oh dear. You say:
    “John, you must be doing something wrong, because if you do a trendline, plotting mm on the y-and years on the x -, without any prediction, (this is the least square fit for that line), then the slope of that trendline (the figure before the x ) is exactly the average rate of incline – or decline – if the slope is negative in mm per annum.”
    No – YOU are doing something wrong. Consider the set of points with (x,y) coordinates:
    -1 0
    0 -1
    1 1
    2 2
    The linear least-squares slope of this set of four points is 0.8 (not 1.0 as you might expect, but don’t worry about this). If you now split these four points into two adjacent sets of two:
    -1 0
    0 -1
    and
    1 1
    2 2
    then the gradient of the first “line” is quite obviously -1.0 and the gradient of the second line is +1.0. The average of these gradients is 0.0 – and NOT 0.8 (the least-squares slope of the set of four points). So you are quite clearly wrong.
    Look at it another way and take your argument to its logical conclusion. Consider a set of points (x(i), y(i)) for i=1 to n. Let’s calculate the trend of each adjacent pair ((x(i), y(i)) and(x(i+1),y(i+1)), and call it T(i).
    Now T(i) = (y(i+1)-y(i))/((x(i+1)-x(i))
    Let’s now make it even simpler and assume the points are evenly-spaced in x, so (x(i+1)-x(i) = a constant (dx) for all i.
    The average of all the trends is just:
    (y(2)-y(1))/dx + (y(3)-y(2))/dx + (y(4)-y(3))/dx ……… + (y(n)-y(n-1))/dx
    = (y(n)-y(1))/((n-1)*dx)
    which is just the trend of the slope drawn through the end points – which is what dear old David Archibald seems to have (almost) done. BUT THIS IS NOT THE LINEAR LEAST-SQUARES TREND.
    Now, if you still don’t understand:
    (1) Go and read a textbook, Wikipedia, or whatever, on linear least-squares analysis.
    (2) Download the Fort Denison data from http://www.psmsl.org/ (there are two data sets for Fort Denison – you’ll need to carefully join these together- also make sure you use the “RLR” data”).
    (3) Perform linear least-squares analysis on this data set, and on the data set divided in two at the middle.
    (4) When you are convinced that I am right, urge Anthony Watts to correct his error.
    (5) Don’t waste any more of my time on trivial statistics.
    Thank you for your attention.

  84. John, I say again:
    you must be doing something wrong, because if you do a trendline, plotting mm on the y-and years on the x -, then the slope of that trendline (the figure before the x ) is exactly the average rate of incline – or decline, if the slope is negative – in mm per annum.”
    There is nothing that I can do wrong because Excel does it all for you: you just ask for the trendline of your plot, and you then ask for the co-ordinates of that trendline.
    If I have temp. degree C on my y- and years on the x- then the slope of my trendline is exactly the average increase or decrease (when negative) in degrees C per annum. If you want me to help you, you must give me your original data (readings) in mm corresponding to the respective years and I will report here what I get.

  85. HenryP: I don’t need any help thanks – I know I’m right. Just do the five things I ask, please, and you will see.

  86. Henry@John
    The situation you described earlier can never happen mathematically as the time scale (x) is always positive. So, as I said earlier, the slope or gradient of the trendline is always the average rate in mm/annum over the time period measured, if mm is measured on the Y and time is measured on the X.
    Henry@anyone here
    Comparing fig. 2 with Archibald’s graph there does seem to be a difference in the scale of the actual measurement. Assuming that Archibald’s graph is in mm, there is a 10 x difference? Can somebody here explain that to me, please?

  87. HenryP: Again – oh dear. Analysis by linear least-squares does not depend in any way on the sign of the independent variable (“….. as the time scale (x) is always positive …..” – what on earth had this got to do with it?) or the units (“the slope or gradient of the trend line is always the average rate in mm/annum over the time period measured, if mm is measured on the Y and time is measured on the X” – again – how is this relevant”?).
    You seem to have a problem with units. Bryant’s graph (Fig. 2) is in years and metres. The gradient of his trend line is roughly (0.95-0.89)/(2000-1880) = 0.0005 m/year = 0.5 mm/year. Archibald’s graph is in years and mm. The gradient of his trend line is roughly (7020-6965)/(2010-1915) mm/year = about 0.5 mm/year.
    You seem to be confused by the fact that Archibald’s data is offset vertically by around 6 metres relative to Bryant’s. Of course this is irrelevant as we are only interested in TRENDS. If you just went to http://www.psmsl.org/ and downloaded the original data, as I asked, you might start to understand this stuff.
    It beats me how you guys think you could possibly hold a sensible discussion over complicated issues like climate change.

  88. eeehh, eehh, John
    May I remind you that you started off with:
    “David Archibald’s “trend” of 0.5 mm/year is rubbish”.
    You wanted it to be 0.9, remember? I said that he probably does the trendlines and curve fitting in Excel, whereby you have to be an idiot if you make mistakes in finding the co-ordinates for the trendline.
    In future you should try using Excel yourself before making wild accusations.
    From you last comment, I gather you are happy now with the 0.5 mm/annum (from BOTH Bryant and Archibald). So, I am glad that we have that problem solved.
    yes, but “man-made” climate change is not really that complicated. I do think that people who believe that more carbon dioxide and more global warming is bad for you are very stupid. Don’t you think it would be nice if we could have a northern passage?
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

  89. HenryP:
    I don’t know what on Earth you think you are talking about. The data used by Archibald has a linear least-squares trend of 0.89 mm/year as I stated. You haven’t actually calculated it have you, with Excel or anything else? In my last posting, I simply showed that the trend line drawn on Archibald’s plot has a gradient of around 0.5 mm/year – but this doesn’t mean this line is a linear least-squares fit – anyone with any understanding of least-squares fitting could see that it isn’t. Do you have any evidence to suppose:
    (a) Archibald calculated the linear least-squares fit, or
    (b) Archibald used Excel?
    Have you got the data and done the analysis yourself? I assume not.
    Please don’t respond again until you answer these questions, and also have taken the trouble to get the data and to do the analysis yourself.

  90. John Hunter says:
    December 2, 2011 at 8:04 pm
    David Archibald’s “trend” of 0.5 mm/year is rubbish.
    And then this:
    John Hunter says:
    December 4, 2011 at 2:29 pm
    Correct – Archibald is an idiot – I’ve heard him speak and seen what he writes.
    Ocean acidification is the last refuge of the global warming scoundrel. The second last refuge is sea level rise. Check out this refuge for AGW scoundrels:
    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_about_us.html
    Our Dr Hunter is third down on this rogues’ gallery. It is strange that Dr Hunter is calling my trend rubbish when it agrees with the trend from the Bryant paper of 0.54 mm/year from the figure at the top of the post. But perhaps Bryant was an idiot too, so let’s settle the matter by seeing what NOAA says: http://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/sydney-noaa.jpg
    NOAA says 0.59 mm/year.
    There is no cause for alarm, is there Dr Hunter? No need for alarm at all. No accelerating rise of sea level, no imminent ice sheet collapse, or whatever it is that ice sheets threaten to do. You sea level people down there in Hobart are a modern version of the Brothers Grimm, concocting scary stories for the self-loathing.

  91. kim2000 [December 4,10.45am],The problem with that article from ‘The Australian’ newspaper is that it makes an erroneous claim for the Australian government’s estimate for the rate of SLR on the east coast of Australia. The government-or more correctly agencies like the CSIRO,which the government cites- gives the figures for current east coast SLR at 1.5 to 3mm since the early 1990s. In no way,shape or form does the government claim that SLR there is at a rate of 10mm/annum as the article states. Yes,the SLR rate will have to accelerate to reach that projected figure by 2100,but the government does not claim that that rate is being observed currently,which is what the article claims.I doubt that Doug Lord would have made that claim either.

  92. David Archibald:
    It’s about time you turned up and cleaned up your mess.
    Now it may come as a surprise to you that the linear trend you get from a sea-level record depends very much on the time period you choose. I have analysed a number of different periods for comparison with the values quoted by others in this posting. If you read my original response (2 Dec) properly you would see that I said “Bryant, of course, did it correctly using linear least-squares fitting” – I agree with the trend he found (within 0.01 mm/year). Here are my linear least-square trends for various portions of the Fort Denison record (I used simple least-squares linear regression on annual data downloaded from http://www.psmsl.org):
    1915-2009: 0.89 mm/year (this is “your” record, David – the trend is NOT, I REPEAT NOT, 0.5 mm/year)
    1886-2010: 0.62 mm/year
    1886-1988: 0.55 mm/year (this is Bryant’s record – he found 0.54 mm/year – the small discrepancy is probably due to the records not being exactly the same length)
    1886-1948: -0.32 mm/year (the first half of the 1886-2010 record)
    1948-2010: 0.67 mm/year (the second half of the 1886-2010 record)
    1886-2003: 0.59 mm/year (in agreement with the NOAA result to which David refers)
    So I am in agreement with Bryant and NOAA but not with you, David. It is no use trying to justify your “trend” for 1915-2009, by claiming it should be the same as the trend for 1886-2003. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHY THE TRENDS FOR DIFFERENT PERIODS SHOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME.
    So David, it comes back to a very simple analysis (or lack of it). You claim that the trend for the Fort Denison data for 1915-2009 is “0.5 mm per annum”. This is WRONG (it is nearly a factor two out) and, moreover, you (and HenryP) seem incapable of even demonstrating you know how to estimate the trend correctly.
    You make a number of other silly assertions in your response:
    > Ocean acidification is the last refuge of the global warming scoundrel.
    So you really believe that the pH of the ocean isn’t decreasing due to the absorption of excess carbon dioxide? Do you also, therefore, believe that the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not increasing? And your qualifications for these beliefs? You are an atmospheric or marine chemist?
    > No accelerating rise of sea level
    If you read my original response properly, you would see that the 1886-2010 record (the longest record available from Fort Denison) shows an acceleration of about 1 mm/year over 60 years.
    > no imminent ice sheet collapse
    Your qualifications for this statement? You are also a glaciologist?
    If you could just show me the sea-level record for Fort Denison for 1915-2009, and an accompanying analysis which gives a trend of 0.5 mm/year then you and this site may be able to retrieve some morsel of credibility. Otherwise, I’m afraid this posting and some of the responses will serve as a perpetual monument to the incompetence of certain climate contrarians.

  93. NIck: welcome to the weird parallel Universe of”Watts Up With That!”. So there is intelligent life to be found here after all!

  94. John Hunters says
    You haven’t actually calculated it have you, with Excel or anything else?
    John, I never disputed the trend, you did. I’m not interested in sea level rise.
    Perhaps you should learn to work with excel?
    But I am glad I had the opportunity to put everything for you in the right perspective, what with figuring out that we must have had an annual rise of ca. 6 mm per annum since the ice began to recede 20000 years ago and all that…..and it perhaps not being so bad for us if there is a northern passage. It could save our shipping lines a lot of money in transport costs. So I am sure you realize now that we all know that the 0.2 mm difference is only about you wanting to split hairs.
    I am more interested in studying surface temperatures; the maxima and minima in tandem with means. Namely, it tells me what is causing the dreaded “global” warming, which is not global, afterall. And afterall, it looks like it is not me or you that is causing it. Except if you accuse me of planting trees. I have done that a lot….sorry…
    I refer to my tables, which I suggest you study carefully
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
    I realize that I can bring a horse (John Hunter &&&X?????) to the water, but I cannot make him drink.

  95. John Hunter says:
    December 6, 2011 at 3:55 am
    One of the simple pleasures in life is tormenting warmers. Normally I would have to put some effort into that to get a satisfying result. But in the case of Dr Hunter, my very existence seems to get him worked up into a lather of bile and self-righteous indignation. It is very amusing but not a quality experience.
    What are my qualifications? It was only this afternoon that I decided that I am an Aboriginal botanist. Perhaps I knew all along in a way but only became consciously aware of my powers recently.
    To all you warmer scientists taking Gillard’s coin to subvert the Commonwealth of Australia, I quote some Shakespeare:
    Get you therefore hence,
    Poor miserable wretches, to your death,
    The taste whereof God of His mercy give
    You patience to endure, and true repentance
    Of all your dear offences.
    When Shakespeare said “death”, I don’t think he meant anything drastic like loss of your pension or the like. You will be retired on the next change in Federal Government. Sacrifices will have to be made to pay down the national debt. You will join a severe glut of climate scientists at the time.

  96. David, that’s interesting. You are a botanist. Well, in that case, I must warn you if you plant too much stuff, you too will be found guilty of causing (some) global warming, as my tables seem to suggest.

  97. David:
    This isn’t a game or a joke. Climate change is serious. That you don’t understand it doesn’t alter the fact that it is serious.
    You and Anthony Watts have had a quite adequate time to admit and correct your error. You have not done this, thereby turning what was basic spin into an outright lie.
    Your actions demonstrate one of the common tactics of the climate contrarian – to present something like a graph and to claim that it shows something which it does not. The late John Daly was good at this (www.members.iinet.net.au/~johnroberthunter/www-swg/ and search for “Misrepresent or Misinterpret Information”). Nils-Axel Mörner is also good at it (see the “sealevelgate” emails at http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~johnroberthunter/www-swg/morner_emails.txt).
    I have described Nils-Axel Mörner as a “prevaricating duffer who, after ….. obfuscation, provided nothing to substantiate his wild claims” – this fits you too, David.
    You mention death. It has been said that action to address climate change will only truly get off the ground when the “old guard” like you, Watts, Morner, Carter, Plimer, Monckton, McIntyre are dead – when the young can move in and take on the new ideas which so scare the old men. It is a common way in which major changes in society come about.
    Yes – I’m “old” too – past “retirement” age – but I happen to think that the future of my children is too important to be left in the hands of people like you, to whom a lie is just a tool of the trade.

  98. @John – sorry, perhaps you are joking. Climate change is as serious as the weather. Both change and none can do anything about either. Now if you are talking about AGW (and just were too flushed to adequately state what it was you are talking about), then that is called science, and science tells us how we go about determining if it is serious. Step one – disprove the null hypothesis.
    As Step one has not been done, then the only screaming hysterically are the hysterians. I am sure they fit quite well in a revival tent, but not in a science lab or course.
    What is serious is for the audacity of some men to think they know everything, when in fact they do not even know what they know not.

  99. Hernry@Philjourdon
    If you put everything you know in a circle, then the more you know, the more you should realize how much you don’t know. A few years ago I set out to determine if carbon dioxide is bad for us, and found out it is not. It rather works as a fertilizer, even in the water. As an example: the nonsense you get when they tell us that CO2 destroys coral. Hard corals build by secreting calcium carbonate, which they cannot do if there is no carbon dioxide and carbonates building up in the sea water?
    In the meantime I figured out that “global” warming occurs largely naturally – either the sun shone more brightly or there were less clouds. The CO2 act as plant food and fertilizer and that makes earth more “fertile” and the extra greenery is causing some of the extra (natural increase) in heat to be trapped.
    >
    You agree?
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

  100. HenryP: One thing that makes me frustrated and angry about climate contrarians is their shear arrogance. They seem to think that a cursory consideration of the science by a non-expert can somehow trump the accumulated knowledge of numerous experts over a long period of time. Take for example your comment that “….. the nonsense you get when they tell us that CO2 destroys coral. Hard corals build by secreting calcium carbonate, which they cannot do if there is no carbon dioxide and carbonates building up in the sea water?”. This isn’t about climate science – it is about basic chemistry. Sure – it is counter-intuitive that dissolution of carbon dioxide in water lowers its pH and makes it harder for corals to build – that ADDING carbon dioxides INHIBITS the production of carbonate. I always find this both hard to understand and problematic to explain to students – but it doesn’t make it wrong. Lots of things is science are (a) counter-intuitive and (b) correct. Your saying otherwise does not render them incorrect. Go learn a bit of chemistry.
    But don’t worry – you are not alone – David Archibald doesn’t understand basic chemistry either (see his first posting of 6 Dec).

  101. @John Hunter – One thing that makes me frustrated about climate warmists is their shear arrogance. They think they know it all, and there is nothing more to learn. Take for example the Mann email where he sought to shut a publication down because it dared publish a viewpoint not in sync with his. His is but one of the many examples of the warmists trying to stifle knowledge in the field. I know I am no expert. I also know that what we do not know on the subject far outdistances what we do know. And therefore, to shut off knowledge now that they have their grants is the same as the muzzling of Galileo by the church. Different chuch these days, but same attempts. And the results will be the same as well. history does not remember the fools who attempted to silence Galileo, they remember that Galileo was right.

  102. So you guys (PhilJourdan and HenryP) are claiming to be the equivalents of Galileo? OK – I get it now.

  103. John Hunter says
    carbon dioxide in water lowers its pH and makes it harder for corals to build
    John I am an (analytical) chemist. The amount of pH change you get in the oceans that all the (extra) CO2 that we put in the air ‘can do” is so small that you would not even be able to measure it on any scale. In fact, we know from the ice records that CO2 has been much higher in the past and that earth was green all over. That the pH of the oceans is still going down has other reasons. Namely, to name a few: the making of metals and their various pre-treatments, the making of PC boards for electronics, the making of de-salinated water, dumping of used soaps and detergents: that is was lowers the pH. In fact there are numerous other processes that man undertakes, even food processing and cement making that produces some acid or acidic waste along the line. Routinely, especially in developing countries, this acidic water gets dumped somewhere without being neutralized first.
    In fact, take all the sulphuric,- phosporic acid and nitric acid and other acids produced in a month and throw that in the ocean. I will bet you that then you might see a measureable change in the pH. And ulitimately, although diluted, this is exactly where all manufactured acids end up.
    You understand what I am saying? You are barking up the wrong tree. Carbon dioxide is good for life. Without carbondioxe there is no life. If water is your father, then carbon dioxide is your mother.

  104. OK HenryP – show us your expertise in marine chemistry, and answer the following:
    1. What is the present average (i.e. averaged over a year and over the global oceans) rate of transfer of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to the oceans?
    2. How much carbon dioxide has been transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans in the last century?
    3. How much would you expect this to change the pH of the oceans?
    4. How much has the “making of PC boards for electronics” changed the pH of the oceans?
    Given the confidence with which you make the assertions in your above response, I naturally assume that you have these numbers at your fingertips.
    And I will not accept answers like “none” or “lots”.

  105. @John Hunter says: December 7, 2011 at 1:58 pm
    It would behoove you, and facillitate the discussion if you could read or comprehend what you read. If you claim that you can do both, then I will challenge you to point out where I or Henry claimed similarity to Galileo. My comparison was with the “Team” and the “Church” of Galileo’s time. My examples all were for that comparison. But if you read something that is not there, perhaps you could show us all since you appear to be the only one who is reading things not written.

  106. Henry@JohnHunter
    eeeeh, professor, it looks like you want me to do some work again, that you don’t want to do yourself.
    I run 2 charities during the day and I concentrate on surface temps in my hobby time, which is giving me some interesting results. For example< I already know there is no warming in East Australia (and NZ) but I can predict that there is some warming in West Australia. Now how did I figure that one out? Do you realize the implication of this? Remember that the CO2 is dissolved in water in a state of equilbrium with temperature. As warming increases (in part due to more greening) so more CO2 is released. More CO2 and more heat leads to….more greenery….. what do you want/ \Where do you think does the wine and steak on your table comes from? yes…. from the CO2!!!! 180 ppm is the bear minimum FOR LIFE TO PROCEED and we only had an increase of about 1.5 ppm per annum since 1960. More CO2 is good.
    Nevertheless, I agree that ocean acidification is a serious problem and I have even been thinking on how to solve that if we really wanted to, but I have only so much time.
    When growing up in W-Europe, I remember a serious problem that occurred in the sixties and seventies: trees and forests affected by…. acid rain. Where did this acid rain come from? Was it the CO? was it the CO2? Was it the…?
    Well it turned out to be the SO2, did it not, even though the quantities output, mostly by the burning of coal, were much, much smaller than the CO2.
    Do you understand now why I am telling you that you are barking up against the wrong tree?

  107. HenryP:
    As I expected, you provide the normal contrarian prevarication and diversion, rather than data to support of your statements. I therefore ignore them
    Don’t you realise how easy it is to demonstrate the fallacies of contrarian arguments? You never provide any hard evidence and you spread your obfuscation all over the web in these silly blogs – you don’t need anyone to steal your private emails!
    “Contrariangate” is everywhere!

  108. PhilJourdan:
    “History does not remember the fools who attempted to silence Galileo, they remember that Galileo was right.”
    So who exactly IS Galileo in your metaphor?

  109. @John hunter – Good question! But the answer is simple enough. What does CG II tell you about the team and their actions? Actually parts were in CG I as well. So who is trying to silence whom?

  110. The slight neutralization of seawater which has occurred facilitates:
    1) dissolving of dead shells and coral, and
    2) building of new shells and coral by actual live organisms.
    Net result: accelerated transfer of calcium carbonate from dead to living shells and coral.

  111. Henry@JohnHunter
    Brilliant. Brilliant. Thanks for that last remark. That was every encouraging. It helps a lot.
    It really motivates me. I dare you to show me which one of those black figures in my tables is incorrect.
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
    I should perhaps just add that they solved that problem of the acid rain coming from the Ruhrgebiet although the burning of coal increased. So they must have found a way to get the sulphur out before it reaches the sky.
    An interesting project might be to dissolve the SO2 from 1 gram of burned coal into a suitable amount of water and the same for the CO2 coming out of 1 gram. Obviously the water has to be de-salinated and neutral.
    (You would think that somebody would have done such an experiment, but I doubt if anyone ever has)

  112. BrianH says
    Net result: accelerated transfer of calcium carbonate from dead to living shells and coral.
    Henry@BrianH
    Brian, that is good news. You are saying that the pH is going down a bit but it is better for the coral. Do you have some official report on that?

  113. HenryP:
    >Brian, that is good news. You are saying that the pH is going down a bit but it is better for
    > the coral. Do you have some official report on that?
    There is a huge literature on ocean acidification and it potentially deleterious effect on corals (which you apparently refuse to read) – and you think it can be destroyed by five lines from Brian on a blog?

  114. Henry@JohnHunter
    There was also huge literature on how more carbondioxide in the atmosphere traps heat.
    Yet, after doing my own investigations, I found this to be untrue,
    namely, if you study my tables, which apparently you refuse to read, you would note
    1) the global warming is not “global” – If the CO2 were to be the cause, should not the warming be everywhere the same, seeing that the CO2 is equally distributed in the air all over the world?
    2) the increase in temperature is driven by an increase in maxima, which surely is due to natural factors: more intense sunshine and/or less clouds.
    I don’t have time to study ocean acidification in detail, but Brian’s remark would not surprise me after all the rubbish reports, books and publications that promote the global warming scam. But I do hope he will come up with some (measured) results to back up what he is saying.
    Brian?

  115. HenryP: I’m not sure if your two propositions are serious or just a joke to wind me up. But I’ll just address the first one, which was:
    ‘the global warming is not “global” – If the CO2 were to be the cause, should not the warming be everywhere the same, seeing that the CO2 is equally distributed in the air all over the world?’
    As I indicated, this question is almost too fatuous to be serious. The climate is a complex nonlinear system forced by solar insolation, modified by surface albedo, both of which have large spatial variability (which is one reason why the tropics and polar regions have different weather). Why on Earth would you think that a constant increase of CO2 should cause the same warming all over the world?
    Do you really think that climate scientists are so stupid that they have not thought through trivial issues like this a long long time ago?

  116. John, do try to get off that high horse of yours and do take some trouble to try to understand other people’s viewpoints. I do find many climate scientists rather stupid, hence we sit with so many people like you who put down people like me with words like “it is too difficult to understand for you” when it is really them not understanding.
    I do hope that at the end of this discussion I might not find you that stupid afterall….
    Understand that it is alleged that warming occurs due to an enhanced greenhouse effect, from the increase in GHG.
    I have given my perspective on what the GH effect is and how it works:
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
    Now, do try to understand what I said there, and then you must determine if you broadly could agree with how I understand the problem.
    Understand that I do not regard it as proven that the net effect of more CO2 is warming rather than cooling. I even think that it is probable that the net effect is simply zero, or very close. However, if there is a net effect of warming, it follows that CO2 only slows down radiative cooling. This is a process that happens in the upper atmosphere and as far as the 14-16 absorption is concerned apparently also only at a certain very cold temperature. Note that CO2 does not slow down evaporative, convective or conductive cooling. So, I can throw all of your “complex” systems out of your argument.
    It follows that the warming, caused by an increased GH effect, i.e. the slowing down of radiative cooling, must happen everywhere in the atmosphere at the same rate, as the increase in GHG is spread the same all over the atmosphere. So, if there is land beneath, where my weather station is, and I measure for a sufficiently long period of time, covering a number of suncycles, then I must pick up the trend and if you say it is the increase in GHG that did it, then we should see that the warming must be more or less the same everywhere.
    However, my 2 arguments (of which you ignored the 2nd one) are interlinked.
    There could be another reason for the fact that there is hardly any warming of the SH and that most of the warming happens on the NH which could still include the GH theory or a part thereof.
    However, for that thing to work I would have still have to see that it is the minima that is pushing up the average temperature. And as far as I have seen (so far), in most cases that is simply not happening.
    That is why I am so surprised that I don’t see on any climate blog site, including WUWT, the development of maxima and minima in tandem with the reported average temperatures on earth.
    Average temps. do not tell you anything at all. You have to see what it causing the average temps. to rise or fall.

Comments are closed.