Hello everyone
My apologies! Please check your recent comments have been published. If not, you might like to submit them again. Thanks.
The other day I discovered a bunch of comments waiting for moderation. I hadn’t noticed them because I’m suddenly not receiving emails telling me they’ve arrived.
The arrival of new comments is always exciting, because it means a new reader has made contact, so I was gutted to make them all wait. They’ll be thinking I’m not here!
Anyway, I approved them (except for some spam) and from now on your comments will be published immediately.
Thanks for popping in.
Views: 325
Hello Richard
I was listening to Peter Williams’ Magic Radio program this morning and a man called Chuck (I think) rang in and spoke about a lecture on Monday at Waikato University about sea level rise.
It sounds like it is going to be from an alarmist viewpoint. Chuck said he was going to go along and ask some questions.
Chuck also said that someone called “Richard Threadgold” ( who had a blog called “Climate Conversion”) would be there.
On the off chance that you might know this Mr Threadgold, I thought I would ask you if you could ask him for details about where and when the lecture is to be held.
I am thinking about popping along and asking a couple of questions myself. I also thought they might be interested in a couple of ways I know of making it seem like seal level rise is accelerating when in fact the tide gage data shows nothing of the sort..
regards
John
Hi John. Yes, I am the Richard Treadgold you ask about. But please accept my sincerest apologies! I quite overlooked your request during a busy weekend and failed to reply to your post. The lecture was on Monday afternoon at 5:15 — I hope you made it in the end. You make some good points here, and you were right that the presentation was entirely from an orthodox point of view and throughout was full of error, misdirection and subterfuge. For example, though they’ve improperly combined satellite altimeter observations with tide gauge records to obtain a “result” of 3.6 mm/yr SLR, there’s actually no way to override the physical tide gauge readings of a NZ average of 1.8 mm/yr. It’s like telling the tide gauges to try harder. Unfortunately I was not invited to ask a question but I will shortly post a brief account. Attendance would have been about 100-120; I thought it showed a healthy public interest. About half young students and half middle-aged hippies, er, greenies.
Hi Richard.
No worries.
In the end I was too busy to get there. Probably a good thing as I would have just got angry. They genuinely do not understand why blending of satellite numbers with tide gauges is not legitimate. They are so incompetent they seem to be corrupt.
I do think the failure of the sea level rise to accelerate the way it is supposed to is a piece of evidence that is difficult to hide.
There is a small stone jetty in Pilot Bay at the base of Mount Maunganui which was built in 1888.
As a child our family stayed in the Domain camping ground every summer in the 60’s and 70’s. We played on the jetty many many times. I still stay at the Mount for a week or two each year. These days I fish from a kayak. The jetty looks the same now at high tide as it did back then. There are many people like me who can see that the high tide hasn’t changed much.
Here are some links to photos of the jetty.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0mhdbfr8d1es8p/Stone%20Jetty%202013-05-01%2011.20.58.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bd1rv2p9j31u7vc/Stone%20Jetty%20Full%20Tide%202013-05-01%2011.20.23.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/i0middawoibu9q3/Stone%20Jetty%20Near%20Low%20Tide%2020161207_084504.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yssqwtn7d8g6zu8/Stone%20Jetty%20Near%20Low%20Tide%2020161207_084917.jpg?dl=0
I look forward to reading your post.
If sea level rise is legitimate, one has to ask why would ex-president Barack Obama spent US$14 million on a beach front property in Martha’s Vineyard?
Hi Brian, thanks for dropping in. Yes, one has to ask! Though I would just change one small feature and say “if SIGNIFICANT sea level rise is legitimate”, because it’s rising all right, just not very much.
Cheers.
Hi Richard,
Thank you for your reply. You may be able to help me out here. I am a biologist, so climate change is not my forte and I am trying to wrap my head round the information. The following may be too simplistic and I think I am missing something. It really can’t be this obvious. So, at the risk of looking like a complete buffoon, here goes.
According to NASA https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/ ” Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C).”
This 15°C is calculated with atmospheric carbon dioxide at 280 ppm. Therefore, if total solar irradiance remains the same and carbon dioxide levels stayed at 280 ppm, our planet would be in a natural balance with an average global surface temperature of 15°C and I am not going to argue with NASA. So far so good. It is also therefore reasonable to assume that if the global surface temperature is affected by some other influence, for example, orbital changes, volcanic dust clouds, carbon dioxide levels etc, once this influence has passed, or is removed, the atmosphere would naturally try to return to this temperature. After all, as this is the natural balance according to NASA, failure to return to this temperature would indeed disprove their greenhouse effect theory.
According to the World Meteorological Organization, the last few years have been the warmest in modern history and global average surface temperatures have been:
2015 – 14.79°C
2016 – 14.89°C (strong El Nino)
2017 – 14.79°C
2018 – 14.69°C
2019 – 14.41°C (average up to the end of October according to NASA satellite data)
Whilst these temperatures may be the warmest for the last 150 years, each of these years is actually cooler than NASA tell us it should be. The only way we can consider these temperatures to be abnormally high is if we completely ignore NASA’s scientifically researched natural balance and start from an unreasonably low reference point. This is the actual position we seem to be in as we know that the temperature in the late 19th century was around 13.7°C. The only other way to show warming is to not state actual temperatures, but to pick a reference temperature, and then report all results, above or below, as the surface temperature anomaly. Logically, this reference temperature should be 15°C, but instead the chosen temperature is 14°C from data gathered between 1951 and 1980 with a global cooling scare right in the middle.
So, back to my simplistic view.
If all factors are in balance, average global surface temperatures should be 15°C.
If temperatures are below 15°C they will tend to rise back under the greenhouse effect
For 2016 for example, the global surface temperature anomaly was reported as plus 0.89°C when it was actually – 0.11°C. This year we are currently on track for a result of
– 0.59°C which will be reported as plus 0.41°C
This seems very unscientific, deliberate data tampering and misdirection. Slight of hand if you will.
Surely I am getting this wrong. It can’t be this simple. Can you help me out with this please.
Thanks,
Brian
Hi Brian
I think you might have found what I call a “deceptive practice”.
Quite common in Climate Science.
It is all about misleading or deceiving while telling the truth.(mostly)
One trick is to not take the Y axis down to zero. Quite common when showing graphs of Arctic sea ice extent.
The fact that they do these deceptions rings alarm bells for me.
It is still possible that the entire greenhouse theory is flawed. There is a reasonably new bit of research by a couple of Irish scientists uses radiosonde data to show how lapse rate can explain the temperature of the atmosphere.
Quite long but worth the effort.
Dr. Ronan Connolly & Dr. Michael Connolly
Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY
Probably because it’s nice to live by the sea, and he can afford it. A very small amount of googling reveals that his new house is just under 10 feet (3 metres) above sea level, and not exposed to open-coast erosion, so I doubt he’ll be claiming insurance or government compensation.
More serious questions are:
– why is development continuing in Miami Beach, which is regularly under water?
– should properties still be bought and sold in South Dunedin and South New Brighton, where thousands of people are living within 50 cm of high tide (and thousands more with even small amounts of sea level rise)?
– what should NZ do about the people who already live or own property in those places, if they become unviable or uninsurable?
Hi Man of Thessaly,
Good questions. I am not sure what we do about the NZ situation especially for very low lying coastal properties. There are obviously more mechanisms in play rather than just sea level rise. For instance, in August 1988, the Sydney Morning Herald quoted scientists in predicting that, due to climate change and sea level rise, the Maldives would be completely under water by August 2018. Clearly hasn’t happened. Just before this years Pacific Island Leaders forum, The University of Auckland published a paper that showed many of the pacific islands were actually growing in area due to tidal depositions and sand movement. Unfortunately it was completely ignored at the forum. That said, I think it is foolish to ignore the perils of low level coastal living. However, if you go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b-WXsjsOqM
This hotel was probably more than 50 metres back from the cliff edge and an awful lot more than 3 metres above sea level. Just shows you, you can never really predict what will happen in coastal situations
Venice is over 1200 yrs old. The Venice City Council are taking their time to get their act together and do something about sea level rise in their city.
Why do you constantly pick on people in South New Brighton? There are lots of people in NZ that live close to the sea.
Is there some special reason why you don’t pick on the residents of Sumner or Redcliffs, for example? Redcliffs has a lovely new sea wall.
Are you talking to me? I think that’s the first time I’ve mentioned South New Brighton. Nothing constant. Not “picking on”. But I mentioned South Dunedin and South New Brighton because I think they’re the most difficult cases in NZ – lots of people, long soft coastlines, and both affected by rain/river flooding as well as coastal.
The difference between Redcliffs and South New Brighton highlights something that will be hard for many people: the same solutions won’t apply everywhere. In some places it will be possible to build protection, and the communities will be willing and able to pay for it. In other places (I’m thinking Granity/Ngakawau/Hector right now) it’s neither technically reasonable or affordable. There, NIWA say, “Ultimately, the lowest-risk long-term solution will be to retreat away from the coastline”
How to decide when to retreat? Who should pay the costs of either protection, relocation or compensation? Hard questions. People are thinking about it, but it needs to be a public conversation too. We need to face the future with our eyes open.
Which reminds me, Andy: can you think of a reason why sea level rise might be getting faster globally, but not in NZ?
There was no flooding in South New Brighton in the 16 years I lived there. But hey let’s pick on them Andy not on the wealthy suburbs of Redcliffs and Sumner.
I’m wondering why my “good friend” Herr Thomas of Hot Topic continues to teach in a school in a coastal suburb in the Coromandel, that apparently is worse than any other place in NZ for subsidence . Maybe he likes picking on people too.
I replied upthread. If you can’t be bothered reading my comments why should I bother replying to you?
1. I didn’t know you were from South New Brighton! So you may know more than me about the place, but as you know it has subsided a lot since that pre-earthquake period. So the flood risk has increased, and is continuing to increase as sea level rises.
I’m curious why you think talking about the area is “picking on” it. Don’t you agree with the evidence that future flooding there is a big problem (for the residents, the city and the country)?
2. I did read that reply of yours, but didn’t understand it was answering my question, sorry. I think we’re talking at cross-purposes: I didn’t mean “why can’t we observe an increasing rate of rise in NZ?”. I think that’s simple: individual tide gauge records are statistically noisy, so it can be impossible to observe acceleration even if it exists. I meant “How could sea level rise be getting faster globally, but staying at a constant rate in NZ?”. This is what you seemed be claiming in the other thread. Or did I get that wrong? My position is: I think the evidence shows that sea level rise is getting faster. This is more easily observed in the global record, because it’s less statistically noisy. It’s harder to see in the NZ records, which have lots of year-to-year variability.
I don’t agree that flooding is a problem in South New Brighton. The flooding maps were redrawn at 50 and 100 year time horizons based on 0, 50cm and 100cm sea level rise assumptions. AT 50cm, most of SNB would not be flooded. It’s only when you take the RCP8.5 based 100cm SLR assumption does flooding become a problem for the area, 100 years out.
There are areas that have subsided, for example the area around Bridge St, and Bexley. The coastal areas of SNB are mostly fine. Some areas have even risen after the earthquakes.
The general assumption among the locals is that the council wants to get rid of the residents because the infrastructure is stuffed (sewers, water etc) One man can’t build on his $200,000 section at all and has now left the country forever, leaving his worthless land behind.
For the eco-fascists this is no problem, because destroying people’s lives is all in a days work for them.
I think they actually enjoy it.
Well, a problem is in the eye of the beholder, and residents. councils, insurers and government are bound to disagree sometimes. But the CCC hazard map disagrees with you. It shows SNB in the coastal inundation hazard zone in 2065 even under RCP2.6 (and so is Sumner). Perhaps the maps you’re referring to are about when the area is actually below sea level? There’ll be a flood hazard a long time before that happens!
I don’t believe your interpretation of the council’s motives. I’m sure it’d be a hell of a lot more expensive to relocate everybody in the area than it would be to replace the infrastructure.
I don’t know about this particular case, but surely land that is in an a low-lying area with increasing flood risk is actually worthless for building on? This is the hard problem: what should the country do about the thousands of people who already own land like this?
We may be looking at different maps. Anyway, the council have decided that it wants to get rid of the residents of Brighton, so that’s that I suppose. I’ve sold up and moved on.
It does make you wonder why they bother building new hot pools by the beach, keeping the library in its current position right by the beach, etc. In fact it makes you wonder why they bothered rebuilding ChCh in it’s same location at all.
Meanwhile, Wellington CBD is built on reclaimed land and will all fall into the sea when the next big shake happens. Does anyone care?
Indeed, so the whole of the waterfront CBD Wellington, Auckland Viaduct Basin etc is worthless for building on?
You can make a strong case for that, yes. Of course, the decision is a combination of lots of things: the cost of building, the return on that investment, how long you expect it to last, the expectation and affordability of protection, your appetite for risk etc. It’s not an obvious decision, and I don’t think it’s been made yet for SNB either. But in all those low-lying coastal places, retreat is probably inevitable eventually.
Hi Man of Thessaly
You said,
“How could sea level rise be getting faster globally, but staying at a constant rate in NZ?”.
I thought I might try to explain.
If you go to http://www.sealevel.info/
Click on Data and then Search for Tide Gauge and have a look at a few.
Here is
Fremantle. http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Fremantle
Oslo http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Oslo
where sea level is falling because of post glacial rebound.
Auckland II http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Auckland+II
Notice that very few show acceleration but they can show a few years of rising followed by a few of falling.
The ones that show acceleration are probably caused by increased ground water extraction causing subsidence.
This is a problem. The Global Warming paradigm says ice caps are melting faster so there should be an increase in the rate of sea level rise. But there isn’t.
There are two ways to fix this problem.
Solution 1.
Average a large number of Tide Gauge records. This makes it look like there is an acceleration even though there isn’t.
Tide gauges that were installed 100 years ago were used to help the harbour master tell if there was enough depth for a ship to come in. They were not interested in sea level rise.
Recently installed gauges are located more often at places where there is a high rate of subsidence causing a higher rate of sea level rise. Therefore recently installed gauges are more likely to show a higher rate.
When these are averaged it creates a false impression of acceleration.
Solution 2.
Blend together Tide Gauge records with Satellite sea level data.
From a scientific point of view it is completely unacceptable to mix these two different types of data. Satellite sea level data are estimates which calculate a theoretical sea level using data from satellites but also use assumptions about humidity and the vertical movement of the earth’s crust. The results are then calibrated against tide gauges.
Nils Axel-Morner has said he thinks they have used the subsiding Hong Kong gauge to do the calibration.
Tide gauges are showing about 1.7mm per year.
Satellites are saying 3.2 mm per year.
They should be regarded as different ways of attempting to determine sea level change.
Blending them together gets the acceleration needed to “prove ” the Global Warming paradigm is correct.
The amazing thing is that the people who are committing this crime against the scientific method may not actually be corrupt. They may simply be incompetent.
Anyway, the point is that there is not an acceleration unless you fiddle with the data.
Hi John,
thanks for that probably well-meaning contribution, but goodness me, a little learning is a dangerous thing! So much unsubstantiated opinion in there… have you considered a career in politics? 🙂
What you wrote is not supported by evidence:
All four long tide gauge records from NZ ports (Dunedin, Lyttelton, Wellington, Auckland) show statistically significant acceleration, as well as about a doubling in rate over the last century or so. Get the data here and check it yourself.
Global tide gauge data on their own do show acceleration, without using satellite observations. And they only show a rate of 1.7 mm/year of you average over the last century. Why would you do that? The rate reported for 1993-2012 was 3.1 mm/yr
Why do you think it’s “completely unacceptable” scientifically to combine tide gauge and satellite sea level data? The results agree where they overlap, and it’s completely normal in the scientific literature.
Has Nils-Axel Mörner published that opinion of the calibration, or is it just blog waffle?
Do you have a peer reviewed citation for that claim?
No, that’s my analysis of the most recent data, posted by StatsNZ just a couple of weeks ago. Download it and check it yourself!
Oh that’s fine then.
I’ll ignore the peer reviewed science and use an unpublished analysis from an anonymous blog commenter to steer my decisions.
That’s wise – Cole’s work is getting pretty old. The recent processing is the same (by John Hannah) but the new data go right up to 2018. Regression is simple enough for anyone to check the result (and StatsNZ publish the linear trends on their site).
Yep, it’s the one linked in the preceding sentence.
That was a discussion of global trends, not NZ tide gauges
That’s right. My paragraph started “global tide gauge data…”.
Sorry it’s hard to keep up with the random links. I thought we were referring to the “significant” acceleration in NZ tide gauge records which the new analysis from the University of Thessaly had published
That was the previous paragraph. Perhaps I tried to address too many of John’s false statements in the one post! He did give me a lot to work with…
By the way, “Man of Thessaly”, you claim that a quadratic can be fitted to any data
To my “pure maths” limited brain, this seems like bollocks
Care to expand on this?
Sure. You can fit a straight line, or a quadratic, or any polynomial, to any dataset. It’s just a mathematical process to find the curve that has the best agreement with the data. The result might not be statistically significant or useful, though.
Ah I see. Similarly I can find an image of Jesus Christ in my tea leaves if I look hard enough.
Yep, regressions like that are often cited when they are in fact as meaningless and useless as tea leaf readings. But used right, they’re very informative. I’m pretty unconvinced about the use of fitting a quadratic curve to sea level data to get acceleration, because the underlying curve does not show a steadily-changing rate. But linear regressions with length about 60 years or more are useful – the references to this are in the MfE guidance.
Mfe like all the rest has only modelling based on Ben Santer’s criminal Fraud of some decades ago. He altered the scientific conclusions of IPCC overnight in a truly Gilbertian manoevre, because the facts would not support CAGW.
Climate is Cyclic not linear because of Solar System orbital Mechanics. Even NASA now admits this because the Tayler Instability is now wrecking IPCC’s plans. Hence the ER panic etc..
Still, I expect the liars to win until their lies come back to bite them. Cold not warmth is the destroyer of life. Invented heat, MoT etcetero trolls. will not sustain you. Brett Keane