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.