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