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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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”
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”
The Mad Max films, that was a future after Julia, right? 😉
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.
oops, of course that is “ARGO buoys” (typo in my previous post)
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
Not likely according to this:
The leaky country?
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/
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.
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!
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.
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!
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?
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.
I can see the revised headlines already
“Virtual world flooded by Isostatic tsunami”
Someone here suggested referring to them as climatologers, not climatologists.
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. $acrifice is required to appease the god$.
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.
Actually, I found this linked at the Bishop Hill blog:
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.
Coke,
Here’s a reference regarding the criminalisation of statements on the Oz carbon tax and its effect on prices of goods:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-truth-will-out-on-labors-carbon-scam/story-e6frezz0-1226197176697
OT but relevant to a previous post:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/a-frosty-reception-for-coca-cola-s-white-christmas-cans.html
LOL
Don’t forget the words vs actions of our current Climate Change Commissioner in all of this-
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/prof-tim-flannerys-waterside-getaway/story-fn6b3v4f-1226104010903
The Australian Government are so sure of the need for a carbon tax that they are about to spend A$100 million dollars to convince the rest of us that it is necessary.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/million-of-hot-airing/story-e6freuy9-1226210651963