Ian Wishart writes in Investigate Daily:
Century old map throws new doubt on climate change sea level claims
A new book on the history of New Zealand has inadvertently stirred the climate change debate by revealing a near zero sea level increase over the past century.
The book, The Great Divide, includes a 100 year old map of Cloudy Bay lagoons in New Zealand, drafted back in 1912 to show the location of 20 kilometres of canals dug with wooden spades by ancient Maori.
However, when the 1912 map is shown alongside a satellite image of the same location from Google Earth, it reveals not only the startling accuracy of the original map (drafted at a time when aerial photography did not exist) but also a stunning lack of Pacific Ocean encroachment on the narrow shoal linking the lagoons to the sea.
The shoal is comprised of rock and pebbles, making it an ideal weathervane for sea level increase as it’s less prone to erosion than shifting sands.
Even the narrowest and lowest part of the bar, marked with a black squiggle on the 1912 map, remains the same in 2012.
The Great Divide goes on sale this week, and among its revelations is confirmation that a massive comet-strike into the ocean off New Zealand’s southern coast caused a 220 metre high tsunami that may have been responsible for erasing evidence of human habitation in early New Zealand.
==============================================================
This might be a good time to review my story about how easy it is to get freaked out about sea level rise.
This is no surprise.
is it on Kindle4Android?
When you examine the cartography of the 1900s – 1930s with relation to coastlines and Arctic islands, one discovers that actually, there is very little difference between then and now. This suggests that the recent “record” ice melt (as recorded by satellites since only 1979) is not that unusual after all. Notice the silence from alarmists about the current level of Arctic ice being exactly on the 1979 – 2000 average and the Antarctic being significantly above average.
Likewise coastal locations show remarkably little sea-level rise overall.
There must be a plausible reason for this almost zero change in apparent sea level over 100 years. It might be that it has in fact not changed very much! This may surprise the establishment, as you suggest. Let’s hope that they do some legitimate reassessment of sea levels around New Zealand. That giant tsunami must have left traces elsewhere I’d imagine. Is there any hint a to how long ago this may have happened?
Robin
Oh dear, it seems that we are unable to track every historic bit of data and “adjust it” to ensure our accuracy. (sarc)
If I recall correctly, the UNIPCC 4th Assessment Report, when they finally corrected the errors, you know, the ones written by 2,500 scientists, 400 lead authors, 850 co-authors, reviewed line by line by 140 governments around the world, none of who were able to spot school boy errors of the wrong decimal point location & failure to actually add the numbers up correctly(Table SPM 0?), claimed that the 1961-1993 sea-level rise rate was 1.8mm/yr, + or – 0.5mm/yr error bar, then dramatically between 1993 & 2003 this had shot up to 3.1mm/yr + or – 0.7mm/yr error bar. Niels Axel Morner reckoned that average sea-level rise rate was 2.3mm/yr. 1.8 + 0.5 = 2.3mm/yr, & 3.1 – 0.7 = 2.4mm/yr! Ain’t sums fun? It’s pretty much the same number for me I am not gonna worry about 1/10th of a millimetre difference!
Cloudy Bay Vineyard produces world class Sauvignon Blanc. Shameless plug by a Kiwi.
A fascinating article. I remember reading of a tsunami generated by a comet – supposedly – which struck in pre European times and swamped a section of southern Australia. The Aborigines talked of a great white wave and the new colonists thought they meant them.
Time to vote again
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/
And if you haven’t yet seen this on NZ’s wind farm scandal, please take a look. New Zealanders need to share the link with their fellow countrymen especially if they know people contemplating buying Mighty River Power shares. This link will not be posted again.
http://nzwindfarms.wordpress.com/
Some years ago we were told that old ships logs were going to be used to determine the rate of climate change. Did anything ever come of it?
Great post today, but I thought that evidence like this had already been discovered and ignored. I seem to recall a web site where a guy posted a very old picture of the mean sea level mark on a cliff in Australia or some place and compared it to today and there was no difference.
Will this information get though to any of the hysterical “climate scientists”???
Well it’s obvious then, the land must have been uplifting from glacial isostatic rebound at exactly the same rate that sea level was rising. Sorted, now can I have my grant money please?
This area is on the edge of very active fault lines so these pictures are just as likely to show land level change as sea level change.
I have always believed that a very simple and inexpensive experiment to look at change of sea levesl, would be to re-survey the Pacific islands which were first surveyed by William Blygh, captain of the Bounty, in the 18th century. Blyth was known as a brilliant navigator and map maker, and it can reasonably be assumed that his measurements were accurate. Comparing them with modern data using modern methods, ought to be cheap, and easy to do.
I wouldn’t read too much into this concerning sea levels. New Zealand is tectonically active and isostatic rebound is significant.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Cool. So variable, yet so stable.
Similar maps should be sought elsewhere. A few must exist. There’d be a high bang-for-the-buck payoff from such a search.
New Zealand is not exactly what one would describe as “tectonically stable”. I’m quite skeptical that historical sea level data from anywhere on the “Ring of Fire” including Chile, California, Japan, New Zealand, etc can be depended upon. My bet would be that in some cases they show no or negative sea level rise and in other cases, too much sea level rise. Is it possible to tell which? My guess is that it isn’t really. … Not currently anyway.
Maybe with the help of GPS or satellite radar altimeters, it might be possible in the future. But I think it will be a few years (GPS) or a few decades (RA) before readings with the necessary accuraccy are routinely available.
Yeah but, yeah but, yeah but….I can hear the alarmists stuttering already! LOL
I can envisage the alarmist explanations, such as perhaps the land elevation has risen in tandem with sea level, e.g. deposition, or earthquakes/land movements, etc, etc….
It does great credit to the map makers of yore that modern surveillance equipment can so easily confirm their work. What is not shown, sadly, are the contours and height changes. The inclination rate of the shore line will control the visible effect of any sea-level rise (or, indeed fall). There would, on a first look, seem to be evidence of some dimunition of land area, but this could easily be ascribed to the natural shifting nature of alluvial deposits.
ABC Australia has thrown away the original resluts of the survey now we have this
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/ its unbelievable we hope tt WUWT kept the original resul;ts?
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/
Seems like Gibraltar would make a fairly indisputable comparison. Spain wasn’t glaciated, the rock goes way down deep, and it’s been important to sailors and navigators for many centuries. Has anyone done the comparison?
This could be done all over the world.
I grew up in Connecicut. Over the corurse of my 60 years on the planet the coast line remains virtually identical.
markstoval says:
April 26, 2012 at 4:02 am
“A guy”? That was John Daly, self-taught scientist, early doubter of the warmista, and inspiration for many who followed.
The mark is in Tasmania, carved in 1841, and is on his home page, http://www.john-daly.com/
I think he’d be very pleased to see this map and photo.
Isostatic rebound refers to the land rising after a great weight (big honkin’ glacier) is removed. Show me evidence that NZ has been under a glacier in the past 3 million years. To the best of my knowledge, that hasn’t happened in the past 100 million years.
NZ is tectonically active, but it seems an unbelievable coincidence that the uplift would be appearantly exactly equal to the theorized sea level rise from glacial melt. Not buying that one either.
Try again.
Bill
Anyone still got that picture of the tree growing on the beach in, I think, the Maldives, that showed similar zilch see rise over, I think again, 50yrs or so. Might be an idea to put that and this together to show its not local. Maybe add in the arctic ‘dissapearing island to boot. In fact, thinking about it, theres loads of this stuff. Anyone with time on thier hands…? Methinks there is at least a paper in this “The historical evidence against increasing sea rise rate” perhaps.
Good points about the land lifting in this area…..thats why WUWT is so diff from RC etc…not afraid to be skeptical of stuff that seems to support ones own position at first glance.
But Australia’s ABC just showed a house in England next to an eroded coast line which was claimed to be evidence of sea level rise. It must just be rising in some parts and not others.
Whether this shows no significant sea-level change, or moderate land change coincident with sea level change, there is one thing that this certainly does NOT show. That is any sign whatsoever that sea level is rising fast enough to wipe London, New York or Florida from the map any time soon!
Such alarmism is clearly baseless and there is a higher chance of a meteorite causing such devastation, than human emissions of CO2 creating such a massive increase in sea-level. Yet I do not see world governments holding meteorite defence summits and pledging trillions of dollars to save the earth from meteorites.
All that is required to explain this lack of sea level rise is to “think like a climate alarmist”.
1. This is only a small sample of the whole ocean and it is merely cherry picking to point it out.
2. The lithosphere was depressed by the comet impact and now Isostatic rebound is causing the coastline to rise at the same rate as the increase in sea level.
3. The 1912 map was drawn by people funded by wealthy corporations and is biased to increasing company profits
See how easy that is.
The value of this matchup is that it could be used to discredit NZ sea level rises alleged by alarmists. That would finesse the problem of NZ being tectonically active.
Perhaps you’re thinking of the photo on the home page of the late John Daly’s site:
http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm
/Mr Lynn
markstoval says:
April 26, 2012 at 4:02 am
“…I seem to recall a web site where a guy posted a very old picture of the mean sea level mark on a cliff in Australia or some place and compared it to today and there was no difference.”
I think you’re referring to the late John Daly’s website:
http://www.john-daly.com/
Incidentally, there’s a notorious “climategate” e-mail cheering his death:
“From: Timo H‰meranta
To:
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal
Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found
another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals
to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.
Cheers
Phil”
You can find it on the November 19, 2009 “Watts Up With That” post.
I keep saying on the blogs (Andrew Bolt & Tim Blair) that if anyone had eyes connected to their brain and lived in Sydney they would see these rising sea levels in action (NOT). I quote from the heritage council website () about an ocean baths where I learned to swim in the 1950’s.
“Wylie’s Baths is located on the rocks at the southern end of Coogee Beach with an entrance off Neptune Street via Grant Reserve. The pool is a rock and concrete pool 50 metres by 30 metres located on a natural rock shelf below the high tide mark with concrete walls around four sides. It measures 50m long and 30m wide (to provide a 50-yard Olympic swimming length) and the depth of the pool varies from about 0.5m in the south-west corner to about 1.6m in the north-east corner. It is flushed twice daily by tidal action. The baths were constructed in 1907 by Henry Wylie, a champion swimmer, whose daughter Mina was also an outstanding swimmer (she represented Australia in the Stockholm Olympics in 1912.
My point is that there exists many tidal ocean swimming pools in Sydney that were built in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Many of these baths are still in use for well over 100 years and they have not been inundated by the catastrophic rising sea levels that the warmist propaganda would have us believe.
Near 100 year old photos of Sydney Harbour foreshores when compared to recent photos also show there is no appreciable sea level rise. That’s why warmists hate old people, we know the truth and will never be convinced by their lies.
John Daly did a lot of the early work on sea level fraud around Aus/NZ – fighting that anti-alarmist cause when it was intensely unfashionable to do so, and when there was no one to help him.
I think he was the first well-known ‘denier’, prompting a famous gloat in the ClimateGate emails when he died. His web site is still kept going here: http://www.john-daly.com/ and it is good to see that his assertions that seal level was not changing in the Antipodes is justified…
Roger says:
April 26, 2012 at 4:38 am
These are the round 2 results. Look here for the ’round 1′ results (and they appear accurate):
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/about/rd1_challenge.htm
Go for the second round…..
Can anyone provide any any evidence of any area where the sea level has definitely and markedly risen in the last 100 years?
This is not a rhetorical or frivolous question. I would very much like to know.
Consider: The land is lifting at Yosemite National Park. It doesn’t all rise at the same rate. There are trees there that have died from a lake that migrated One side of the lake rose, the water went to the low end and drowned them. In these photos here,The small ponds and channels keep the same spatial relationship. If the land is rising, it’s coming up perfectly square, perfectly perpendicular to gravity.
Not bloody likely!
The IDIOTS that are talking about rising sea levels are just that, IDIOTS ! The Pacific Ocean covers one third of the worlds surface, its max. depth is 11 km or 35,700 feet. It is 165.2 million square kilometers or 64 million square miles, midnight in the north is midday in the south, a storm hundreds of miles across with waves meters high in the south has no, I repeat no effect on the sea level in the north, having sail the Pacific many times and had weeks without seeing land IDIOTS have just no perception of how big it is ! And they are talking about fractions of an inch ?
[Moderator’s Query: Uhhh, George, are you sure you meant North and South? -REP]
The British Admiralty has all the charts going way back past Captain Bligh. He was not the only quality cartographer that they Had. Indeed many of those charts were still in use unti l very recently.
The needs of sailing ships, no depth sounder, little room to maneuver, meant that coastline charts were of the highest quality. Most being superseded by metrication, deep sea soundings improvements and port development.
A very rich resource for sea level researchers.
Re Jerome
Professor Nils Mörner have been saying that according to landmarks the sea hasn’t risen anything measurable the last hundred years. He has published several papers and lectures on this, google it. I don’t know if its credible except that the visuals he provide clearly demonstrate that at that particular point(s) the sea haven’t risen.
“Warmists hate old people” I love that. Thanks Ozzy John. Indeed, we remember. We all read “1984” and “Animal Farm” . We remember people being killed trying to go over the Berlin Wall. We’ve seen the change in environmentalism. it used to be a noble thing.
The following link opens up a photo, a beautiful one, of a palace built some 300 years ago by the Knights of Malta alongside the Mediterrenean sea’s Malta harbour known as the Grand Harbour of Malta. One can easily see the steps leading from the edge of the water to the palace. The first step is about 12 inches above sea level which is the perfect height to get on or off a tender boat. Tide here has an oscillation of maximum 9 inches. Considering all this I do not see any reason why any scientist can say that this place, and therefore the whole planet, has seen any sea level variations these last 300 years.
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=malta+grand+harbour&hl=mt&sa=X&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=g68iT762YLV-4M:&imgrefurl=http://www.malitashipping.com/aboutmalta.htm&docid=USpD9gf3u-avzM&imgurl=http://www.malitashipping.com/images/melitapic22.jpg&w=2064&h=1448&ei=GEuZT_6FBq7a4QTDz4HFBg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=181&vpy=346&dur=1724&hovh=188&hovw=268&tx=26&ty=210&sig=117223596319254972936&page=3&tbnh=151&tbnw=190&start=45&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:45,i:176&biw=1280&bih=859
This link includes a multitude of photos of the Grand harbour, which has been the main harbour of the island for 2000 years at least.
http://www.google.com/search?q=malta+grand+harbour&hl=mt&site=webhp&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=pUqZT6OKFMnsOf7AscwG&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CBMQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=859
The problem with the coastal houses in England is one of tidal erosion from North Sea Storms and not sea level rise. Those cliffs have been eroding for centuries/miilenia. If people are foolish enough to build houses on eroding landscape that is their problem. In many cases these houses were built to replace houses that fell into the sea in earlier times and the cliffs have just caught up with them. Conflating natural beach erosion with sea level rise is easy when people are facing the catastrophe of losing their homes, much easier to blame it on people than natural forces donchaknow.
I have a large number of UK Ordnance Survey maps from the 1950s and also a number from the most recent survey in the 2000s. Coastal areas show no sea rise although they do show changes in shoreline due to longshore drift and erosion etc. In Wigtown bay in Scotland the sea level seems to have dropped. If I had access to a web site I could upload them for comparison.
What I love about WUWT is the willingness to consider hypotheticals. Here, I’m impressed by the speed with which some folks offer the explanation for “unchanged sea level” as being a perfectly-matched isostatic rebound/tectonic plate rise. That’s elegant; but more importantly, it’s falsifiable. What evidence is there that the region is behaving that way? And what are the odds that there would be a perfect match? These mechanisms (sea level rise, isostatic rebound, tectonic plate action) are not –so far as I know– correlated. So what are the odds of perfect correlation here?
Just asking.
@RobRoy, I believe that you are talking about Yellowstone NP (Yellowstone Lake, specifically), not Yosemite. Considering that Yellowstone Lake is about 500 miles inland and resides directly over the top of an active supervolcano, I seriously doubt that the changes in that particular shoreline has anything to do with changing sea-levels.
As to spatial relationships of the lake contours, take a look at pictures of Mt St Helens (another volcano) on May 17th, 1980. There was this huge bulge that erased Goat Rocks on the North Slope of the volcano — but the rest of the mountain was relatively unaffected. Kinda like the area surrounding Lake Yellowstone.
Apples-to-giraffes correlation there.
Grey Lensman: Good comment on the Admiralty charts, and particularly the reason why the near-shore measurements would have been so scrupulously accurate (and precise). When you are commanding HM vessel in splendid isolation half a world away from any help, let alone a proper shipyard, you had better have good soundings. …To what extent have these charts not been used to develop the historical baseline data for sea level trend studies?
PS: Good moniker, I vaguely remember those books!
scotchman1 says:
April 26, 2012 at 6:41 am
” If I had access to a web site I could upload them for comparison.”
How about
http://photobucket.com/ ?
A previous WUWT article reviewing the Maldives, and other sea level rise info, is at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/
Am also a bit surprised about the survey results magically changing. Went and took the survey myself, and was put into the ‘dismissive’ category. Actually has 16 questions, give it a shot yourselves….
There is one major change though. The size of “Upper Lagoon” has increased and the northern end of the larger land mass, depicted on the 1912 Map, between Uppper Lagoon and Big Lagoon has vanished. This could be due to erosion or the wave action along the shoreline might act to offset sea level rise by depositing fresh material to reinforce the shoal area
Quite easily explained. New Zealand is a volcanic island chain and any sea level change has been masked by the islands rising at the same rate due to swelling magma chambers.
As a geologist, may I say that relative sea level is a complex issue?
May I also say that it has bugger all to do with the leevel of CO2 in the atmospnhere?
@Paul Nottingham – “Some years ago we were told that old ships logs were going to be used to determine the rate of climate change. Did anything ever come of it?”
This is an ongoing project that you can help with. It appears that, contrary to popular myth, there isn’t unlimited money for climate research, and so scientists interested in looking at past climate are looking for volunteers on the internet to transcribe the log books of naval vessels.
See http://www.oldweather.org/
The sea level has not changed in Hobson Bay Auckland NZ in nearly 100 years.
Wilson’s Beach, Auckland NZ in 1918, showing the high tide skimming underneath the Hobson Bay sewer pipe:
http://i39.tinypic.com/141nzog.jpg
High tide at the same beach in 2010, still under the same sewer pipe (in the process of being removed and there’s a new bridge in front of the pipe):
http://i42.tinypic.com/x4pvyb.jpg
Greg R. Yes I meant Yellowstone. My point was terrain doesn’t all rise at the same rate regardless the cause. If every acre of NZ all rose up together, there would be no mountains there.
Don’t you know that because of all the ice melting that the land is rising because it weighs less. So the ocenas are rising but not as fast as the land is. And don’t you know that the lighter land causes earthquakes and tsunamis. In addition, the water that should be making the oceans rise is evaporating and causing big winter snow storms on the east coast and freezing temperatures or is causing it to be too hot in March or tornados. You guys just don’t get it.
The scientific community would, one imagines, have made particularly accurate measurements of the Bikini Islands beach levels and conditions prior to the nulear tests made there in the fifties,
This book and the map further confirms my belief CAGW “scientists” do not perform any historical research before writing their pathetic BS papers.
Sorry for the typos. Oceans, tornadoes
OK, so actually looking at the site the new numbers are the ‘second’ poll to see if people changed their minds about warming, compared to the first one where a majority ‘dismissed’ AGW… I’d encourage folks to take the survey, goes fast, and I found their choice of questions interesting. You do have to provide a postal code….
Did you get a load of this? Here we learn that over decades of existence humans build things. That’s not good (!) because you’ll find this filed under ‘climate change’.
http://climate.nasa.gov/sof/#Mininggrowth_Chile1.jpg
Yellowstone lake floor has risen considerable due to magma rise in the dome directly under the lake. An old tourist steamer that sunk decades ago became visible on the surface a few years ago because the bottom of the lake had been pushed upward several feet.
Actually when I weigh “climate fears”, I worry more about eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano than I do about the temperature rising closer to the average non-ice age temperature. It will have real and pretty harsh effects on my every day life and I live 2,000+ miles away from the thing. If people worry so much about minor temperature fluctuations during this ICE-AGE we currently are in, I can’t wait to see the panic in 10,000 years or so when we leave the ice-age and head for a real (natural) warm epoch.
Scotchman
It’s not a big surprise that there appears to have been a sea level decrease in western Scotland – that really is isostatic rebound in action. As you probably know, the UK was partly (largely) covered by glaciers during the last ice age – at furthest these got almost to the Thames valley, but in the last advance only to northern England. The weight of the glaciers pushed Scotland downwards, and subsequent melting and loss of this mass means that not only is Scotland rising slightly, but that the entire island is tilting with the south-east sinking a little (which is part of the reason for the broad and shallow estuaries from the Humber southwards).
This does make tracking sea level changes around the UK something of a difficult proposition, as there’s no good static baseline to take measurements from (and anyone who believes satellite altimetry has an accuracy in the millimetre range needs to reconsider).
Good point above also about coastal erosion being the biggest issue for much of the east coast, at least from North Yorkshire downwards (I have relatives who live close to Holbeck Hall in Scarborough – there was coastal erosion in action). I recall a few years ago writing a complaint to the BBC over a news article they did suggesting climate change and consequent bigger storms were putting coastal communities at risk (I seem to remember it was based on a coastal village in Norfolk). Typically, my complaint, which was that coastal erosion was, is and always will be a natural process on that coastline and that any putative changes to the weather were speculative and would have little or no significance to this, was given a brush off on the say-so of the climate scientist advisers, even though I have a PhD in geology and everything I said was demonstrably true. Actually, there was one part of my complaint that was upheld, which was about the use of a photograph apparently showing black smoke coming out of cooling towers – I did notice they stopped using this false image at least for a while
Whoa, let’s let this one subside, whether or not sea level is doing so. I’d like to defer to a coastal processes expert as to whether a “shoal of rocks and pebbles” is “less prone to erosion [and presumably depostion] than shifting sands.”
Grey Lensman says:
April 26, 2012 at 6:24 am
The British Admiralty has all the charts going way back past Captain Bligh.
These charts are still used today. They are the basis of most of the marine charts used by all countries of the world. Most of the areas of the world that were surveyed by Bligh and his like have NEVER been resurveyed, the costs are simply too high. What you see drawn on modern charts are copied from the BA originals. Even modern US (NOAA) charts.
I sailed for 20+ years on these charts. They are remarkably accurate, to a level of detail that is hard to imagine given the technology they had to work with. None of these charts show any appreciable sea level rise going back 300 years. The one fathom line is still where it was 300 years ago.
I’ve just noticed that there is a big change in the course of the meandering river over the years.
Again, absolutely bugger all to do with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere…
Scipio says:
April 26, 2012 at 7:17 am
Quite easily explained. New Zealand is a volcanic island chain and any sea level change has been masked by the islands rising at the same rate due to swelling magma chambers.
Volcanic islands “sink” into the ocean over time because they depress the ocean floor that supports them with their weight. This is readily seen in many island groups and is the primary mechanism that forms coral atolls.
Wow! Who’d have ever thought to look at old maps and compare them to Google Earth images when we have models! What a concept!
Living near a major river system, I always laugh at people claiming we will all drown. The old houses still stand proud, yards from the water, which they simply couldn’t if the levels had risen as much as has been claimed since 1850 ish.
(PS, follow my name link to read about the nonsense of the current UK “drought”.)
What a great map!
As a kid I used to be amazed at the accuracy of old maps like this, even when I learned how they do it. It still amazes and impresses me.
May I say,as a geologist, that I was wrong? There appears to have been very little change in the course of the meandering river over the years?: I got the scale wrong.
May I also add that this also is bugger all to do with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere? In fact, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere seems to have bugger all to do with anything of any consequence – or inconsequence – with anything whatsoever.
Joe Romm says that (Hansen says with GISTemp) that global temperatures are still rising and have not had a 15 year break, while Jones (with HadCruT) and Lovelock say that nothing much has happened for (at least) a decade. The ability to take contrary positions with the same metric is a staggering comment on the idea that the “truth” speaks for itself.
Sea-level: up, up and away, or the same? Who is doing the telling? Australia officially says the average rise is 4.1 mm/yr. Even the silly satellite stories only give 3.1, while tidal guages are 1.8 – 2.1, and places that are well-known, like New Zealand, say virtually nil. If you can’t agree on whether it is getting warmer or not, I’m not surprised you can’t decide on whether the seas are rising or not.
When you claim to measure globally, no local or regional measurement can dispute your claim. It is a brilliant position. Whatever you see or measure is always less than what the guru speaks of. He is like the woman who says that no man, not being a woman, can understand what it is like to be a woman. True enough, but in some ways, one can speak reasonably about the other without becoming one himself.
The meme protects itself as well as reproduces itself. Lord help us.
Well, there’s only one rational explanation if we’ve ruled out tectonics and isostatic lift, New Zealand is floating on the ocean like Guam and is rising with the sea level (it’s probably too big to capsize so that’s a good thing).
But what I don’t get is, it’s my understanding that Peter Jackson filmed Lord of the Rings in New Zealand – so why don’t the scientists just ask the Elves there what’s happening with climate and sea level? They live for like, thousands of years, they should know what’s going on.
Sea level rise – 4.1mm a year. I like it. How big is a wave? A ripple? Am I alone in thinking that sea level rise measured to 0.1 mm per year is just a wee bit screwy? There must be a physical law – Murphyesque perhaps – which states that the accuracy claimed in any particular metric is in direct proportion to the amount of bollocks which is being espoused to uphold it.
I’m with Jerome. Can anyone point us to a clear example of significant sea level rise over the past 100 years? I’m not talking about a couple of centimeters at the 1.0 – 3.0 mm/year run rate, which in most areas is essentially unnoticeable. I’m talking about an example of significant rise, preferably one that has had a meaningful negative impact on the habitat or living conditions of the coastal area.
From John Daly on we’ve seen many examples of significant sea level rise *not* happening. I’d like to know if anyone is aware of it actually happening. Or is significant sea level rise just a hypothetical . . .
Anthony the ABC poll has been updated for the second programme. i.e. we changed your mind. 1400 votes so far
. . . it reveals not only the startling accuracy of the original map . . .
The assumptions here are startlingly naieve in the lack of historical awareness they show, and they play right into the hands of people such as Mann who pass off studies of climate less than two thousand years in time depth as “paleoclimate” studies, as if historic information were not available, or an historic account of a drought was not as reasonable a “proxy” as a tree ring.
Accurate mapping is a matter of careful observation, knowledge of geometry and some astronomy, and intent rather than technology. To assume otherwise is rather like confounding electronics with “technology,” as if until we developed electronics, we were still in the stone age. Some research into the history of cartography will reveal that even without aerials, military surveyors were capable of surveying closed routes of over 100 miles length with closure errors measured as parts per 10,000,000 or better – errors of mere inches over more than 100 miles. These works were accomplished with plane tables, alidades, chains, optical transits and similar non-electronic gear. Roman military surveyors laid out aqueducts that carry water at precise falls for 10s of kilometers. They even invented the inverted siphon. The Romans did not even have the compass.
Uhhh, Moderator,
Wikipedia: “The Pacific Ocean is larger than all the worlds landmasses combined.
The Equator divides it into the NORTH and SOUTH Pacific with 2 exceptions, The Galapagos Is. and the Gilbert Is. which are on the equator and are deemed wholly in the South Pacific.”
With the technology available today it is impossible to measure variations so fine, if the earth is continually wobbling in its voyage through space ( be it only fractions of a degree) try holding a saucer full of water,in one hand .
Where geological processes like subsidence or tectonic movement are active, they will completely swamp any signature of global sea level change. The best example is probably Southern Alaska, where relative sea level is dropping like a rock because the land is rising.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
Here is an 1862 map of Hobson Bay Auckland New Zealand drawn by Charles Heaphy who was an important NZ surveyor.
http://i45.tinypic.com/110kx9h.jpg
The shore line at the foot of the map was the same until the area was reclaimed for sports fields in the 1950s. There is no evidence of a higher sea level in Hobson Bay in 150 years.
This may be too obvious, but tides go in and tides go out – often rising an falling a meter or more. (Confirmed here: http://nz.weather.yahoo.com/tide-times/ for areas around NZ).
The satellite image could be quite different at high tide compared to low tide. Without knowing what tide levels were assumed for the original map or the tide levels in the satellite image, even a change of 0.2 m in mean sea level would be easily missed as the tides themselves rise and fall more than a meter.
There may be other ways to look for sea level rise, but two snapshots a century apart is not even close to being convincing evidence for or against sea level change.
New Zealand is reckoned to be rising due to post glacial rebound. So any tidal gauge readings will probably already be “corrected” to take account of that.
Even if NZ tidal “adjusted” gauges show rising waters, don’t expect any flooding.
Also don’t forget that the “mean sea level” is now somewhat above the level of the physically real sea (the one that makes things wet) and more so every year due to their GAIA [sic] adjustments.
http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/data/pgr/
So all the sea level data basically comes back to how accurately we can estimate the rising land on which the gauges are set. (Dont forget that satellites are calibrated against tide gauges, they don’t corroborate them).
How well we can estimate land rise depends on how much we know about the historical thickness of the glaciers (approximate guesses from tide marks in post glacial lakes) and how accurately we know the VISCOSITY OF ROCK.
This is all back of envelope estimations. don’t be fooled into thinking it can be used to work out mean sea level to with in a tenth of a millimetre.
More fairytale science.
climatereflections says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:28 am
I’m with Jerome. Can anyone point us to a clear example of significant sea level rise over the past 100 years? I’m not talking about a couple of centimeters at the 1.0 – 3.0 mm/year run rate, which in most areas is essentially unnoticeable. I’m talking about an example of significant rise, preferably one that has had a meaningful negative impact on the habitat or living conditions of the coastal area.
SE England.
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/SLR_south_coast_1900_-_2008.pdf
Don K says:
April 26, 2012 at 4:33 am
Maybe with the help of GPS or satellite radar altimeters, it might be possible in the future. But I think it will be a few years (GPS) or a few decades (RA) before readings with the necessary accuraccy are routinely available.
The BIFROST project has been doing this in Scandinavia for some time now.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JB000400.shtml
Sea level rise : Leading the ranks of imperceptible indicators since 1979.
[grin]
New Zealand is local, so there are no relations to global sea level rise.
[/grin]
“jaymam says:
April 26, 2012 at 7:34 am
The sea level has not changed in Hobson Bay Auckland NZ in nearly 100 years.
Wilson’s Beach, Auckland NZ in 1918, showing the high tide skimming underneath the Hobson Bay sewer pipe:
http://i39.tinypic.com/141nzog.jpg
High tide at the same beach in 2010, still under the same sewer pipe (in the process of being removed and there’s a new bridge in front of the pipe):
http://i42.tinypic.com/x4pvyb.jpg
”
@Jayman
there are several differences in the images you’ve provided.
In the 1918 image, the pier/roadway to the left of the image appears to be solid down to the water line while in the 2010 the area appears to be supported by piers and isn’t solid to the water surface. It appears that the area has been rebuilt between 1918 and 2010 so it is troublesome to make a comparison between the two images.
It’s nice to see another book supporting the comet strike 500 years ago. The subject was discussed by Gavin Menzies some years ago. There is an excerpt from his book at this link.
A comet breaking away from the large comet (Napier and Clube) which entered the solar system about 20, 000 years ago enters the Earth�s atmosphere travelling at 216, 000 km per hour, passing over SE Australia and hits the Earth at 48.3� S, 166.4� E. It penetrates the ocean bed creating an impact crater 20 � 2 k.m. wide, and 153 metres deep. Dallas Abbott and team have named it Mahuika crater.
The impact is about 90 k.m. from Zhou Man�s fleet. His masts are smashed off; many ships catch fire and sailors on the upper decks have their ear drums blown out by the pressure pulse. The ships are turned into helpless hulks.
A tsunami is created with waves 200 metres high, travelling at 1000 miles per hour. Zhou Man�s wrecked fleet hurled NW to Australia and N to New Zealand. When the tsunami strikes New South Wales, huge boulders are carried on top of cliffs 32 metres high. Several junks are carried over sandbars far inland (Warrnambool; Wollongong where Chinese blue and white has been found in tsunami debris far inland). One of the wrecked treasure ships is impaled in a cliff at Moeraki, 45 degree bows up, and with a 45 degree list to starboard. Two burning junks are hurled into the cliff-face at Wakanui Beach, Ashburton, where their wreckage is buried deep beneath a Tsunami formed cliff, which also covers a stone built Chinese canal. The scene in New Zealand resembles a fleet of aircraft crashing simultaneously.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread25812/pg1
Cloudy Bay? Really really nice white wines…
Similar features are all over Hawaii. Ancient sea shore fish ponds hundreds of years old showing only signs of age, not submersion.
There’s a lot of talk about what would do if satellites were not able to measure sea level anymore. The old standby “go to the beach!” should of been how we have been doing from the start. We don’t need multiple satellites and an dual observation stations on the moon to gauge sea levels. Just walk to the shore and see for yourself. The sea has not risen!
There’s countless stories, and then and now photographs, going back more than a century, documenting a lack of supposed “data” supported sea level rise. Our own eyes, from sea to shining sea, are telling the same story all over the world, going back decades and further, the ocean has NOT risen. Discount far-fetched explanations like “the land has risen.”
There’s not going to be 100 feet of sea level rise over the next century. There’s not going to be any rise! My Real Science comment: The Chicken Littles’ predictions of disaster were baloney then, and baloney now. A scratching broken record. Never ending. The people have had enough of the unceasing farbrication, the endless laughable doom and gloom. It’s obvious bull.
re: “drafted at a time when aerial photography did not exist”
Aerial photography was pioneered back in the 1850s and was in common practice during the American Civil War. In the early days, it was predominantly balloon or kite-based – the first heavier-than-air instances were 1909 or so. Aerial mapping was in full swing as early as WW I.
I don’t know that aerial photography was used to help draft the 1912 map in New Zealand but I don’t think the possibility can be dismissed either. If it was used, then the original photographs may still exist, making the case even stronger.
REPLY: I think the correct caveat would be “aerial photography capable of photos at that height did not exist in 1912” – Anthony
Thom says:
April 26, 2012 at 7:36 am
Don’t you know that because of all the ice melting that the land is rising because it weighs less. So the ocenas are rising but not as fast as the land is. And don’t you know that the lighter land causes earthquakes and tsunamis. In addition, the water that should be making the oceans rise is evaporating and causing big winter snow storms on the east coast and freezing temperatures or is causing it to be too hot in March or tornados. You guys just don’t get it.
Time for your meds, lad. Past time, in fact…
Dang, just re-read Thom’s comment. We *do* need a sarcastic font.
Sorry, Thom. Have a beer on me…
Anthony wrote:
“drafted at a time when aerial photography did not exist”
————-
“Balloons provided the first human lofting vehicle and allowed observations that informed the later drawn aerial perspectives. As soon as the developing art of photography allowed, the balloon provided a platform for the first aerial photographs.
Credit for the first aerial photograph goes to French author and artist Felix Tournachon who used the nom de plume Nadar. He captured the first aerial photo from a balloon tethered over the Bievre Valley in 1858. The oldest extant aerial photograph is a view of Boston by James Wallace Black in 1860. Nadar provided the first aerials of European cities with views of Paris in 1868. The first photographs from a free flight balloon were by Triboulet in 1879 over Paris. William McMullin matched the feat years later (1893) to capture views of Philadelphia.
It is interesting to note that Nadar was talking to the French Military as early as 1859 regarding “military photos” for the French Army’s campaign in Italy. Balloons were explored as observation platforms during the American Civil War with Wallace urging aerial photography as a technique for reconnaissance. It seems that from its first moments aerial photography was to have links with the military and this association has been responsible for many advances in the aerial art. The exceptions to this general rule are worth celebrating and a great place to start is Arthur Batut, the first kite aerial photographer.”
Source: http://www.arch.ced.berkeley.edu/kap/background/history.html
————-
re: “aerial photography capable of photos at that height did not exist in 1912”
That statement assumes the map would have been based off a single picture. That is rarely the case for aerial mapping, especially when using photos from a camera dangling off a kite or balloon. The usual practice is to take multiple pictures, each showing a different part of the terrain, and piece them together until you have a coherent total picture. This requires careful calibration to adjust for elevation, angle, lens distortion, etc. but it does not require that the balloon or kite be exceptionally high. Then you copy out and republish the finished map.
Dang, just re-read Thom’s comment. We *do* need a sarcastic font.
Sorry, Thom. Have a beer on me…
OK Bill; I will!
We already know that a great deal of the Earth warmed not at all in the last 200 years, and from this and numerous British Admiralty Charts it seems that sea level didn’t rise at all in great many places. Once again, what was alleged to be ‘global’ was in fact regional or local.
While we’re at it, can we use the word ‘alleged’ to frame AGW pronunciamata? Libs so reflexively use ‘alleged’ for criminals, so they should do they same for alarmist statements.
Mann alleges…
Hansen alleges…
while the world still waits for a single shread of actual proof.
“Had people listened to (James Hansen) twenty years ago, Manhattan wouldn’t be underwater now.” — Steve Goddard
@george Tetley – The mod was referring to your comment “midnight in the north is midday in the south”. Should it be “midnight in the east is midday in the west?
James Allison said @ April 26, 2012 at 3:58 am
The Git’s regular tipple. Shameless glug by an adopted Tasmanian 😉
Anthony replied @ April 26, 2012 at 10:09 am
I think you will find that then, as now, aerial photography for cartographic purposes consists in creating a series of photographs that are stitched together. I have a magnetic anomaly map of western Tasmania on my study wall, much of which was due to my friend and pilot Peter. Had he flown at sufficient height to make the image in one shot, he would certainly have asphyxiated.
Tony Brown’s excellent Historic variations in sea levels. Part 1: From the Holocene to Romans @ http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/12/historic-variations-in-sea-levels-part-1-from-the-holocene-to-romans/ is well worth reading if you have not done so yet. The Git is very much looking forward to the next installment.
Duster says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:51 am
==========
Nice comment.
This quote, from the article:
“However, when the 1912 map is shown alongside a satellite image of the same location from Google Earth, it reveals not only the startling accuracy of the original map…..”
Needed to be addressed, and it was.
Good job.
This is a good time to recall Steven Goddard’s animated GIF overlay of modern La Jolla Point onto an 1871 photo of the same spot.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/sea-level-change-in-la-jolla-over-the-last-140-years/
“Tokyoboy” (I hope I remember correctly the nick) has posted an interesting graph here some time ago and there was a discussion at WUWT about it:
http://www.data.kishou.go.jp/shindan/a_1/sl_trend/sl_trend.html
One can see the actual sea level rise but also see that there is nothing unusual to it – been there seen that.
Of course New Zeeland and Japan are only local… When looking at Daly’s site (as posted above too) one sees a lot of other local data:
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/msl-rept.htm
Daly has also a very interesting paragraph:
“The `ICE-3G’ Model
In the earlier case of Stockholm, with its sharply falling sea level, IPCC scientists made a massive correction to the data, turning a relative sea level fall into a mean sea level `rise’. This outcome resulted from adjusting the observed data with correction factors derived from the ICE-3G model developed by Peltier and Tushingham in 1991 [34]. This model purports to describe crustal movements of the continents and sea bed in the wake of the demise of the great ice sheets. The model depends on calculations about the plasticity of the earth’s mantle upon which the crustal land masses `float’.
ICE-3G is the most used model for correcting tide gauge data against PGR [15]. It’s creators, Peltier and Tushingham were among the first scientists to make the linkage between global sea level rise and the Greenhouse Effect, claiming in 1989 that sea levels were rising at a rate in excess of 1 mm/yr [33].
The impression has been conveyed to the world’s public, media, and policymakers, that the sea level rise of 18 cm in the past century is an observed quantity and therefore not open to much dispute. What is not widely known is that this quantity is largely the product of modeling, not observation, and thus very much open to dispute, especially as sea level data in many parts of the world fails to live up to the IPCC claims.
Whatever degree of confidence is placed in this model, its use in determining past global sea level changes means that the IPCC estimate of +18 cm sea level rise over the last 100 years cannot be regarded as an observed value, but as a largely modelled value with a high error margin due to local distortions.”
Models, models all the way down…
No wonder our satellites cannot find the sea level rise and need to be adjusted:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/04/analysis-finds-satellite-data-has-been.html
It is interesting to see that there are adjustments which go back wards in all the years before. From one year to the other the sea level rise is maybe 1 mm. Look at the UC last graph do you see a rise from 2011 to 2012? Was there one from 2010 to 2011? It was only minimum from 2009 to 2010. But interesting the whole graph is made to keep the steady line of 3+ mm. The last change was the GIA adjustment which appeared last year. But is that adjustment not already there in the data? What adjustment was done in 2003 to the data?
http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/was-nicht-passt-wird-passend-gemacht-esa-korigiert-daten-zum-meeresspiegel/007386/
http://www.science-skeptical.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Menard-2000.gif
http://www.science-skeptical.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Aviso-2003.jpg
Looking in the tide gauge data one cannot see nowhere any acceleration:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
I bet the ice lost is modeled – it results to a sea level increase that is modeled in the sea measurements which result in adjustments to the sea level measurements, temperature adjustments in the past (filling with model data where history data is missing), adjusting according to the models where the measurement is not “credible” adjusting argo data according to adjusted sea surface data… should I continue?
How much of the data that is being sold to us is modeled and how much is real data?
I fear these guys have completely lost it, cannot work anymore without models, their understanding of reality is only through models, are not able to discern between what is model and what is real. For them model is real and they ask themselves why we skeptics cannot see it.
@Bengt Abelsson says:
April 26, 2012 at 11:09 am
“Had people listened to (James Hansen) twenty years ago, Manhattan wouldn’t be underwater now.” — Steve Goddard
You got my monitor on that one…diet coke out the nose is not pleasant by the way…
Thanks, Phil.
Your link points to a paper that says the sea level has risen at a rate of 0.8mm to 3mm/year, depending on location, which is essentially identical to the background numbers I mentioned. It further says that extreme sea levels increased “at rates not statistically different from the observed rise in mean sea level.” Then they go off to forecast what might happen in 100 years.
So my question remains: can anyone point to concrete evidence of sea level rise “that has had a meaningful negative impact on the habitat or living conditions of the coastal area?”
Comment re Ian Blanchard: According to “The Great Ice Age” published by the Open University isostatic rebound is not a factor for most of the Scottish coastline (it is the centre of Scotland which is rising not the edges) and certainly not Wigtown Bay. England should be sinking. I will run a check of my OS maps for a variety of areas and will communicate findings.
Jimmy Haigh says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:10 am
> May I say, as a geologist, that I was wrong?
Certainly, you’d be a pretty lousy scientist if you didn’t admit to mistakes you make, and a pretty unproductive scientist if you never made mistakes.
> I got the scale wrong.
On the other hand, a geologist who can’t compare two maps drawn to different scales can only have his mistake forgiven if he buys everyone a good beer.
@Larry Plume P. Excellent analysis!
So even the minimal sea rise as purported in the “data” is modeled. It’s not an observable rise. See my last comment, I have a point, then. There has been no actual rise at all in sea level, for decades. They have fabricated a rise based on modeled fanciful tectonic plate movements, or the like.
Yes, go to the beach, the beach shows that the sea has not risen. That is reality. The models show the sea has risen. That is not reality.
I remember imaginary numbers in math. Well, we have imaginary modeled sea level rises. Inane. So we may very well see 10 ft in sea level rise over the next 50 years. But that will be a modeled rise. Go to the beach in the future and it will be the same as it’s ever been. So we need to implement draconian 80%+ CO2 cuts to combat future modeled (imaginary) sea level rise?
climatereflections says:
April 26, 2012 at 12:33 pm
“So my question remains: can anyone point to concrete evidence of sea level rise “that has had a meaningful negative impact on the habitat or living conditions of the coastal area?””
There are of course coastal areas of the planet that are experiencing problems with sea level, Venice being perhaps the most noted, but as far as I have seen, in nearly every case the problem is generated by what is happening to the coastal land and, though the small changes in the water levels certainly don’t help, they would be largely irrelevant if the land was stable. .
Jimmy Haigh says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:25 am
Sea level rise – 4.1mm a year. I like it. How big is a wave? A ripple? Am I alone in thinking that sea level rise measured to 0.1 mm per year is just a wee bit screwy? There must be a physical law – Murphyesque perhaps – which states that the accuracy claimed in any particular metric is in direct proportion to the amount of bollocks which is being espoused to uphold it.
I tried to measure sea level once but it kept changing by the minute.
Thepompousgit
Thank you for your kind reference to my article on ‘historic variations in sea levels.’. The second part is on the stocks after I finish the article I am currently writing ‘historic variations in arctic ice part two.’
This has involved reading some 500 science papers and several visits to the met office archives. I’m hoping it will prove useful research for the sea level article as logically if land ice melts or freezes it should impact on sea levels
Tonyb
mikef2 says:
April 26, 2012 at 5:21 am
Well, there’s a bit of a problem with that tree – Mörner claims it was pulled down by an Australian science team that opposed his views. Things may not be that simple….
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=118
Both have photos, though the first appears to be an odd collage of two or three photos.
DavidA says:
April 26, 2012 at 5:30 am
But Australia’s ABC just showed a house in England next to an eroded coast line which was claimed to be evidence of sea level rise. It must just be rising in some parts and not others.
To the east of the town of Hastings are 7km of sandstone and clay cliffs which extend past the cliff top village of Fairlight to the low lying land at Pett Level, both of which are in Rother District Council. The cliffs are designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest and for the 5km within the Borough of Hastings there is a policy of no active intervention and the cliffs are left to erode naturally.
Before plate tektonics, it was assumed that the land surface remained constant, and it was only ocean levels that changed. We now know that land levels change also, though not as quickly as sea levels. In additon you have changing tides due to changes in the distance of the sun and moon, and changes in local sea level due to changes in atmospheric pressure.
As far as I can tell, the only objective way to measure sea level changes is by measuring changes in the moment of inertia of earth’s rotation. With more ocean and less ice, earth’s rotation should slow at a faster rate than with less ice and more ocean.
“DavidA says:
April 26, 2012 at 5:30 am
But Australia’s ABC just showed a house in England next to an eroded coast line which was claimed to be evidence of sea level rise. It must just be rising in some parts and not others.”
Which part of the UK was that claimed?
There was a news item a few years ago here on NZ TV claiming Global warming/climate change was causing sea level rise on the coast of southern England. they showed these property owners missing half their backyards due to coastal erosion.
What was the real cause of the increased erosion turned out it wasn’t anything to do with GW/CC or supposed sea level rises. The Local Council hadn’t and wouldn’t do anymore maintenance on a 100yr old coastal sea wall / barrier which was in a bad state of disrepair due to $$ needed to bring it up to date and because of that increased erosion to those properties was a result due to coastal tide/wave action breaking through the old sea wall!
@jim Cripwell
Don’t forget, Jim, that those pacific islands are often floating on a “lens” of fresh water. As the islanders have pumped out this water, their islands have sunk a little. Seems like we learned that on here.
To Scipio and Ferd berple,
As mentioned New Zealand is very geologically active. It would however be wrong to assume that the whole country either rises and falls evenly as a result of all of this activity. Here are a couple of examples.
The most recent major activity in the vicinity of Cloudy Bay was the Great Wairarapa earthquake of 1855. This was centered on the lower North Islands east coast across Cook Strait from Cloudy Bay. This earthquake resulted in well defined uplift along the southern coastline of the North Island, most noticeably at Turakirae Head where past dramatic uplifts are well catalogued in the rocks as defined high tide marks.This of course occurred before 1912. There have been no more significant events in that area since 1855.
In more general terms due to the constantly rising bulge of the North Island’s central volcanic plateau, the Ruahine Ranges, one of several spinal ranges in the lower North Island, are rising at a rate that will see them go from their current mean of 1600m (5,250 ft) to over 3,500m, similar to the current height of the Southern Alps. From what I have read all of this will occur over a long geological time scale and will be mainly independent of other events at the coast less than one hundred km’s away. For example although the Ruahines can expect to hold a lofty place in a future New Zealand the next spinal range to the south the Tararua Ranges, a bit over 100 km away, will only maintain there current general elevation of 1,500m. The Tararua Ranges hold a distinction that their northern cousins don’t however.The Tararuas mark the northern most extent of mountain range glaciation from the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago. Mt Ruapehu, a strato volcano near the centre of the North Island still has small glacial remnants on it as a result of being twice as high as the Tararuas. Even on clear summer days I can see these galciers from my backdoor 80 miles away.
As far as coastal markers go, out on our coast is the wreck of the S.S. Hydrabad. When I was a kid we could dive off the bow into deep water at high tide. With the advancing sand dunes, amongst the longest in the southern hemisphere, the Hydrabad is now well above the high tide mark and barely visible!
Cheers
Coops
Bryan A: April 26, 2012 at 9:53 am
The “pier/roadway” was a 2 metres 2km long sewer pipe on legs. At the very highest tides the sea nearly covered the legs. I have watched it do so for over 60 years and the maximum sea level has not changed.
Here’s a picture showing the sewer pipe and the bridge built in front in order to remove the pipe:
http://i47.tinypic.com/34e45f5.jpg
You can see the pipe and its legs curving away in the distance.
I concur with the caution about tectonic movements in New Zealand. The Basin Reserve – a famous sports ground in Wellington – is built on land which was below sea level until raised up by the last big earthquake. If you did your map comparison there it would look like a sea level drop up several metres.
Kelvin Vaughan says: But Australia’s ABC just showed a house in England next to an eroded coast line which was claimed to be evidence of sea level rise. It must just be rising in some parts and not others.
Yes I noted that one as well. And that guy was the former head of the now infamous CRU at University of East Anglia, so he knows full well that coastal erosion is due to the British Isles tipping though mantle rebound and not global warming.
I think if you look closely he never actually says it is. He just takes the program’s guests down there for a spot of fresh air and the chance to talk about global warming.
Since we’ve all been programmed to interpret anything that happens as a result of global warming he just takes the viewer there and lets them draw a totally false conclusion.
Same sort of deceitful propagandist tactic as shutting of the air-con before the Senate hearing on global warming.
I live on the coast in New Zealand, and have been involved in a court case challenging local government coastal hazard regulations which are based on IPCC projections of sea level rise.
Here, there has been seaward build-up of dunes of around 20 metres over the last 20 years, so it is a bit hard to take the IPCC projections too seriously. Clearly on a dynamic coastline, there is dunal ebb and flow, but on balance, there has been no observable over-all erosion for several generations.
Despite the inability to ground-truth the IPCC projections, there does not seem to have been any revision of the predictions (and the regulations which are based on them).
Because the IPCC projections are regarded as Gospel Truth by the NZ authorities, it would have been impossible to challenge the local government rules by challenging the IPCC projections. So the court argument ended up revolving primarily around the Bruun Rule, the formula used by the local authorities to make their erosion predicitons (using the IPCC projections of sea level rise).
The Bruun Rule however pre-suppposes a “closed sedimant compartment”, one into which there is no net transfer of sediment. So, instead of arguing about whether the IPCC projections are valid, we ended up arguing that the lack of observable dune erosion must be because this is not a closed compartment, and that the Bruun Rule should not have been used. This was a very difficult thing to prove without having undertaken an expensive sand budget survey, and not surprisingly we lost the case.
The point I want to make, is that the example cited in this post makes no mention of whether the area is a closed or open sediment compartment. It should be taken into consideration.
Just reviewed the clip.
Mike Hume explains the coast is eroding at 5m per year. The narrator has already primed the viewer by saying “.. he’s taking them to a nearby town to remind them that climate change is more that just a theory , it already _very_ real.”
Though Hume does not say so explicitly in the clip it’s clear in the context of the program they are not there to talk about coastal erosion and mantle rebound.
The program makers clearly present this as a result of “very real” global warming.
So either they are being deceitful or they were mislead by Hume.
Oh, I so love this! Now THERE’S some data they can’t adjust down in the past or up in the present. Heck, they just can’t fiddle with this one. Wonderful stuff.
I was stationed in the US Air Force at RAF Bentwaters, Suffolk, UK in the early 1970’s, and remember stories of Dunwich disappearing into the North Sea beginning 1286 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunwich
I suppose this is another sign of erosion caused by global warming, in this case the natural climate change of the Medieval Warm Period.
Closer to home, I’ve lived near the Point Arena coastal area of Northern California off and on since 1949. We have numerous low lying areas along the coast that haven’t changed in 63 years. The coastline here is rocky, and no glaciers or icecaps made it this far south so we don’t have any isostatic rebounding. I’m sure a case could be made that our proximity to the San Andreas fault causes something or other, but so far the evidence is of modest lateral movement rather than vertical.
In the face of myriad observations world wide of no significant sea level rise, we continually are informed that the San Francisco Bay Area will see 1.5 to 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100 (some “studies” say by 2050). However, San Francisco tide gauge records since June 30, 1854, show a steady increase of about eight inches per century (2 mm per year). http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=7172590
To reach the expected five feet or more sea level rise by 2100, the rate of increase would have to accelerate immediately by a factor of at least 8.6 (to 17.2 mm per year), and maintain that rate for 87 years. Such a rate of increase hasn’t occurred for over 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age.
I’m skeptical, as would anyone with a brain looking at numbers like these.
Ric Werme says:
April 26, 2012 at 1:26 pm
“On the other hand, a geologist who can’t compare two maps drawn to different scales can only have his mistake forgiven if he buys everyone a good beer.”
=================
I’m waiting for your retraction.
Any time you are ready.
First they use the ‘projected’ (i.e., alleged) sea-level rise to ban beach building.
Then they’ll make the entire coastline a wilderness keep-out zone,
so nobody will be able to observe the still-unchanged sea level.
I just had a look at a NZ government page about planning for sea level rise.
http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emissions-trading-scheme/building/groups/climate-change-leadership-forum/2008-06/planning-for-sea-level-rise.html
No mention of the vertical movement of tectonic plates. No consideration of the fact that when the earth’s crust moves upward, there is effectively no change in sea level.
Are you suggesting that in 1912 they were smart and skilled enough to make an accurate map without sattelites and computer models?
Can’t be true. More likely that the map was made by psychics who were predicting the future.
If the sea levels are everywhere rising because of AGW. And the rise is not observable because the continents are also rising because of tectonic movement, isostatic rebound, swelling magma chambers, etc. then I submit a new and important theory of the earth:
The earth is getting larger.
Dave Wendt:
Venice being perhaps the most noted sorry.LMFAO maybe you will claim the Low Country’s SORRY but Venice is swamp land and allway’s has been and the Low Country’s ARE reclaimed sea bed Yes humans are not really a bright people in groups let’s build in the Flood Plain’s and then whine it’s flooding or the same on most coast line’s Look at N.O. what happened they let people build behind man madeflood walls and when they failed it was nature’s fault Really well did the Old Quater flood or just the reclaimed land they let people build behind the manmade flood wall. Human Stupidity know’s no bounds
Phil. says:
April 26, 2012 at 9:18 am
Don K says:
April 26, 2012 at 4:33 am
Maybe with the help of GPS or satellite radar altimeters, it might be possible in the future. But I think it will be a few years (GPS) or a few decades (RA) before readings with the necessary accuraccy are routinely available.
The BIFROST project has been doing this in Scandinavia for some time now.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JB000400.shtml
==============================================
Thanks Phil. I was sort of aware of the BIFROST project, but it seems to me that their error bounds — 1.3mm/yr radial I think — are a bit on the high side for sea level change which is probably on the order of 2-3 mm/yr. But maybe I haven’t thought it through. In any case, they are close enough that I think that GPS technology will be able to provide solid, usable readings for GIA+local tectonic motion in the not too distant future. I sort of vaguely understand the difficulties, and achieving that sort of accuracy is no small feat.
Clay Marley says:
“The earth is getting larger.”
Yes! And here is proof that would even pass climate peer review.
climatereflections says:
April 26, 2012 at 12:33 pm
So my question remains: can anyone point to concrete evidence of sea level rise “that has had a meaningful negative impact on the habitat or living conditions of the coastal area?”
__________________________________________
How about the coast line moved. (In the wrong direction) Why anyone thinks nature is static and never changes is beyond me. I find idiotic politicians a lot more frightening than a supposed sea level rise of 18 cm per century or a “modeled” temperature rise of a degree or two.
“That giant tsunami must have left traces elsewhere I’d imagine. Is there any hint to how long ago this may have happened?”
— Robin, over 50 years ago Immanuel Velikovky wrote a short series of books that you might enjoy. Earth in Upheaval detailed many geological findings that suggest catastrophic events shaped the the planet we see, including a couple of massive asteroid strikes that would have created tsunamis that swept across continents. In another book (Ages in Chaos(?)) he ties these events to written accounts and records found around the world.
He makes are very strong case that the earth experienced more than one near-extinction event within recent times.
I work with old RP plans fairly regularly. Swamps, streams, and rivers move fairly quickly over the course of a 100 years. The ocean is held back by a flexible movable medium called sand. Its amazingly resilient stuff. Seasonally (depending on cyclones and lulls) the dunes will move back and forth by 10’s of metres, but compared to 100 year old maps, remains consistently similar.
Honestly, a rise of 1.8 millimetres over 100 years will not be noticed by a sand dune.
@ Smokey ““The earth is getting larger.”
Yes! And here is proof that would even pass climate peer review.”
Well, I’m convinced! (Yes, I know that there is a video “expanding Earth my ass”, but that one is boring.)
So my question remains: can anyone point to concrete evidence of sea level rise “that has had a meaningful negative impact on the habitat or living conditions of the coastal area?”
__________________________________________
How about the coast line moved. (In the wrong direction)
Hi Gail, I’m Mike Combs, probably a relative by marriage since we Combs are the largest closely related family in the US.
Sea level rise was very beneficial for San Francisco. During the Ice Age San Franciscans would have had to go more than 26 miles east, past the Farallon Islands, to get to the beach (sea level was over 400 feet lower then). If it hadn’t been for sea level rising an average of about three feet per century for over 12,000 years, the “City by the Bay” would just be the town by the Sacramento River mudflats. Sign about that, Tony Bennett.
“I lost my shoes,
in the Sacramento mud flats”
I was wondering where would water go from decreasing ground water level and melted ice from mountains and poles, if it is not sea, then where? May be sea water level rise is only for countries near equator like Maldives, Bangladesh etc. visit: devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com scientific analysis and answer.
The SEA-saw Hypothesis
AGW is occurring and stable sea levels do not disprove it.
Obviously the water from melting glaciers has increased the weight of the oceans causing the seabeds to sink. This downward pressure on the earth’s molten core is relieved by an uplifting of the continents. This creates the appearance of a stable sea level.
This SEA-saw Hypotheisis can be experimentally confirmed by visiting a children’s playground. But dont go too often and definitely don’t take photos much less movies or you will be confronted by angry deniers questioning your motives and making accusations of data molestation.
Eugene WR Gallun
I never was as funny as I used to be.
As a resident Kiwi and qualified geologist I agree with Bill Y. Uncanny coincidence.
Hello! anyone out there? Time (15:56 EST in Brisbane) for an update on the figures. 2670 votes, and the Dismissives are at 43%.
The Pompous Git says:
April 26, 2012 at 11:37 am
I think you will find that then, as now, aerial photography for cartographic purposes consists in creating a series of photographs that are stitched together.
It’s called a photomosaic, should the subject come up at one of your parties.
I have a magnetic anomaly map of western Tasmania on my study wall, much of which was due to my friend and pilot Peter. Had he flown at sufficient height to make the image in one shot, he would certainly have asphyxiated.
Good aerial photos (suitable for mapmaking) have to be taken from directly overhead — even a high oblique shot will produce more lens distortion toward the edges than an overhead. Overhead shots require a photographer to aim straight down, using a stable platform, flown on a constant course, a constant airspeed, at a constant altitude — given the state of the art in 1912, the only aircraft meeting the requirements of stability, being capable of carrying an observer/photographer, and operating at a useful altitude was the deHaviland FE-2. Find one in an old barn somewhere in NZ and you can strengthen the theory that the map was drawn from a photomosaic.
Until then, my money’s on a very professional cartographer.
I have a post card of a beach resort in Puerto Rico from the 1970s. I Googled earthed the same place and lo and behold no change in sea level. Seems to me that this is an exercise that many of us could do …. dig up those old post cards ..!
Just to clear up any confusion, I was referring to aerial photography in New Zealand not being available in 1912…first aerial photo taken in 1919, and first used for cartography in 1926. See http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/modern-mapping-and-surveying/3
An Air Force aircraft spotted what was suspected to be a drug-running boat off Darwin about 30 years ago. In evidence before the Court, the boat crew argued that they were outside the (then) Territorial limits. The Prosecution produced maps to show the position of the vessel relative to the shore, which was fixed by the aircraft pilot noting that it was two wing widths offshore at 1,000 feet. It turned out that the maps being relied upon were more than 100 years old. It’s not only climate science that has a problem with verification.
(Story from memory, exact details might be slightly different).
holy island ne england is cut off by the tide twice every hours – it was described by Bede writing in
700 ad it is exactly the same as he describwed it in 2012 – NO Change in sea level in 1300 plus years!
peter johnson
Mike Lewis
April 28 11.16 am
I am a New Zealander living and working in Germany ( thats in the North ) the time here right now is 21.24 the time in New Zealand ( which is in the South ) right now is 07.24
Ian Wishart says:
April 27, 2012 at 5:03 am
Just to clear up any confusion, I was referring to aerial photography in New Zealand not being available in 1912…first aerial photo taken in 1919, and first used for cartography in 1926. See http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/modern-mapping-and-surveying/3
===========
Nothing personal, you just raised the hacks of some.
This no-sea-level-rise claim sounds fair enough and may well be right.
But I would normally put little faith in a record based on coastal features on an island in an area of subduction zones, transverse faulting and accompanying measured earth movements.
Given the magnitude of CAGW predictions – in the San Francisco Bay Area, an increase of 2 meters by 2100, and James Hansen and Al Gore predicting a rise of 20 feet by then – it is a red herring to quibble about whether sea level rise is accelerating a fraction of a millimeter per year. If the rate of increase doubled to 16 inches per century, which it shows no sign of doing, Pacific islands will cope very well as they have with over 400 feet of increase over the past 12,000 years since the end of the Ice Age.
Rather than producing a laundry list of factors possibly acting in some direction and magnitude or other, it is more to the point to observe and record what is instead of what may be.
The time differences have nothing to do with the N-S spreads. Germany is about half the planet east or west of NZ, take your pick.
Bill Yarber expressed doubts as to whether there has been glaciation in NZ during the last 2 million yrs or so. Even skeptics need to think before posting comments. Today the South Island of NZ contains hundreds of glaciers. The longest one is the Tasman Glacier (about 15 km or so). Areas not all that far from cloudy bay were glaciated about 20 thousand years ago during the last ice age. This includes most of Nelson Lakes National Park, which contained glaciers 15 to 20 km long. This is my MSc (Geology) thesis field area. My estimate of ice volume in the South Island at the last glacial maximum is 20,000 to 30,000 cubic kilometres. Given the elapsed time and the distance (50 km or more to big ice deposits) it is not cear whether there are residual isostatic effects at Cloudy Bay
I feel I can speak to glaciation in the South Island (to which cloudy bay is attached) with a degree of authority, having just completed a PhD incorporating glacial geomorphology and the dating of fluvioglacial deposits in North Westland (middle of the South Island). The work also incorporated dating of a flight of raised marine terraces (up to 180 m above MSL) dating back more than 100,000 years.
I would agree with Bill Y that conclusions relating to sea level change at Cloudy Bay are probably premature. Even if sea level has risen by (say) 150 mm, this is likely not sufficient to change the morphology of the Cloudy Bay coastline appreciably. It should be noted that the coastal bar at Cloudy Bay recieves an abundant supply of coarse sediment from the Wairau River. So the bar is capable of an element of regeneration.
It is also worth noting that the Cloudy Bay area is tectonically active. There was a shallow earthquake of magnitude greater than 7.0 on the Wairau (Alpine) Fault during the mid to late 1800’s. This produced a significant surface rupture near to Cloudy Bay. Clearly Cloudy Bay is inside the active Plate Boundary Zone. The area is being twisted and warped and this has been detected by precise surveying (old networks) and GPS surveys. I am not certain what this means for Cloudy Bay. Geomorpholgical evidence suggests that the adjacent Marlborough Sounds area is sinking (drowned River Valleys) so it is possible that there is little uplift at the Cloudy Bay shoreline.
Any conclusion relating to the presence or absence of sea level rise/fall at Cloudy Bay will probably need a more detailed analysis than can be accomodated in a typical blog article.
indrdev200 says:
April 26, 2012 at 9:36 pm
I was wondering where would water go from decreasing ground water level and melted ice from mountains and poles, if it is not sea, then where? May be sea water level rise is only for countries near equator like Maldives, Bangladesh etc. visit: devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com scientific analysis and answer.
Realistically, sea level rise is only for countries offering substantial discounts and freebies to visiting UN Climate delegations…