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.
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?