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.
James Allison said @ur momisugly April 26, 2012 at 3:58 am
The Git’s regular tipple. Shameless glug by an adopted Tasmanian 😉
Anthony replied @ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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.