Attenborough warns of climate 'crisis moment'

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, joc said:

Huh?  No beach?  No surf!  Oh well...

That picture is of Moreton Bay when there was a cyclone warning from further north.  It's that system the generated the conditions for the opportunistic surfers.  and the tide in that pic is pretty high.

The nearest genuine beach is about 30 minutes north at a place called Woorim.  

[tmcom]

3 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

10cm is about four inches.  The sea level in Sydney Harbor varies by about six inches.  It is currently at its lowest level in a couple of decades or so.  SO:  at the moment, it shows a low reading.  No problem there.

The reason I want a reference to the BOM analysis is so I can compare it to my own.  Apparently, they show a greater rate of rise than I do and I would like to know why.

Doug

Well, since you asked nicely, Doug, (and l am getting over a flu and couldn't be ....ed, researching anything, anyone else could research just as easily) Sydney Harbor.typically has over a metre in low and high tides, with a 6cm drop at present.

The BOM says a 10cm rise from 2014 to 2007, and tidal guages at Fort D, (easy to find) says it has dropped 6cm in recent times, so the BOM is wrong.

So going by Fort, D, averages, it is down 7cm since 2014, and down 6cm since 1914, which means the guy running the BOM, should seek out other employment.

The chart above is updated to 2019, with no acceleration or increase.

And just to show the absurdity.

Last 30 years Sydney Harbor, (the real chart, not the one the BOM uses from the back of a Micky Mouse comic).

This showed Fort, D, in Google images, and backs up what BOM has said, or a 100mm, (10cm rise since the 1990,s) which is wrong!

Edited January 23, 2020 by tmcom

[openozy]

7 hours ago, joc said:

Oh, but wait! You have Cyclones too...I forgot.  Right?  

If it weren't for that nonsense...I'd be living in South Florida.

We did have a tornedo here in Western NSW last year that flattened houses,never been recorded before.

[Doug1029]

5 hours ago, tmcom said:

Well, since you asked nicely, Doug, (and l am getting over a flu and couldn't be ....ed, researching anything, anyone else could research just as easily) Sydney Harbor.typically has over a metre in low and high tides, with a 6cm drop at present.

The BOM says a 10cm rise from 2014 to 2007, and tidal guages at Fort D, (easy to find) says it has dropped 6cm in recent times, so the BOM is wrong.

So going by Fort, D, averages, it is down 7cm since 2014, and down 6cm since 1914, which means the guy running the BOM, should seek out other employment.

The chart above is updated to 2019, with no acceleration or increase.

And just to show the absurdity.

Last 30 years Sydney Harbor, (the real chart, not the one the BOM uses from the back of a Micky Mouse comic).

This showed Fort, D, in Google images, and backs up what BOM has said, or a 100mm, (10cm rise since the 1990,s) which is wrong!

I was hoping to find a report that showed ALL the data, not just a selection and included a regression model.  BOM shows a slightly higher sea level than does the actual tide gauge.  A regression model could be the source of the discrepancy.  It's not good enough to say that the other guy is wrong.  You have to show WHY he is wrong.

Doug

[ChrLzs]

So, two disparate places can't have different levels or rates of change..?

And what exactly is the logical progression from that?  All tmcom has claimed so far is that BOM are stupid.

 

It's like debating with a slug.

Edited January 23, 2020 by ChrLzs

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

So, two disparate places can't have different levels or rates of change..?

And what exactly is the logical progression from that?  All tmcom has claimed so far is that BOM are stupid.

 

It's like debating with a slug.

Not two different places.  Two different researchers looking at the same data set from the same tidal gauge.  I'm thinking the difference comes from the way each group is looking at the data, not in any differences in the data.

Doug

BTW:  Sydney Harbor isn't the only gauge in that part of the world that shows very little change in sea level.  Australia seems to be sitting in a "hole" in sea levels.

Doug

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, Doug1029 said:

Not two different places.  Two different researchers looking at the same data set from the same tidal gauge.  I'm thinking the difference comes from the way each group is looking at the data, not in any differences in the data.

Doug

OK, I stand corrected, and will apologise for that, but not for tmcom AGAIN not citing where he got the data.  I don't feel a need to be chasing down his sources - for a start, surely there are more tide gauges in Sydney Harbour - it is HUGE, and without seeing the context of what he posted, it is not possible to comment further.  Especially when his only point seems to be that BOM are doing 'something' wrong....

Tmcom, CITE YOUR DAM SOURCES.

Quote

BTW:  Sydney Harbor isn't the only gauge in that part of the world that shows very little change in sea level.  Australia seems to be sitting in a "hole" in sea levels.

Doug

Indeed, and to examine this further and find relevance to the topic would involve looking at geology/oceanography, ocean currents, tidal movements at micro and macro scales, and the like.

Given that he can't even learn how to cite, tmcom's chances of understanding even the basics here are less than zero. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by ChrLzs

[Doug1029]

19 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Given that he can't even learn how to cite, tmcom's chances of understanding even the basics here are less than zero. 

I've given up on that.  I'm mostly just talking to the wall.  It listens better and sometimes I thin it understands more.

Anyway, I've reached some very boring data work on my next project and answering tmcom's posts gives me something to do as a break.

Doug

[Golden Duck]

12 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

I was hoping to find a report that showed ALL the data, not just a selection and included a regression model.  BOM shows a slightly higher sea level than does the actual tide gauge.  A regression model could be the source of the discrepancy.  It's not good enough to say that the other guy is wrong.  You have to show WHY he is wrong.

Doug

tmcom hasn't actually linked to a Bureau Of Meteorology report, graph or data. 

The table is here (http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/ntc/monthly/)

A quick linear regression, in Excel, gives an r-squared value of 0.2.  I didn't consider the king tides in January or anything like that.  Maybe, you can say that the trend for the mean reading increases two millimetres a year.

Where this 10 centimetre claim comes from is a mystery.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Golden Duck

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

tmcom hasn't actually linked to a Bureau Of Meteorology report, graph or data. 

The table is here (http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/ntc/monthly/)

A quick linear regression, in Excel, gives an r-squared value of 0.2.  I didn't consider the king tides in January or anything like that.  Maybe, you can say that the trend for the mean reading increases two millimetres a year.

Where this 10 centimetre claim comes from is a mystery.

Thanks.  I didn't expect a high r^2.  What I am wondering is how much lower is the last reading on the gauge than the straight-line estimate.  That could explain the difference and where tmcom's claims of falling sea levels are coming from.

I'll have to look at this some other time.  My wife and I are going out to dinner as soon as she finishes class.

Doug

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

I've given up on that.  I'm mostly just talking to the wall.  It listens better and sometimes I thin it understands more.

Anyway, I've reached some very boring data work on my next project and answering tmcom's posts gives me something to do as a break.

Doug

tmcom does do one good thing.  In answering him I often have to look up things and that is teaching me a lot.

Doug

[tmcom]

5 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Not two different places.  Two different researchers looking at the same data set from the same tidal gauge.  I'm thinking the difference comes from the way each group is looking at the data, not in any differences in the data.

Doug

BTW:  Sydney Harbor isn't the only gauge in that part of the world that shows very little change in sea level.  Australia seems to be sitting in a "hole" in sea levels.

Doug

Yeah, the manager of the BOM is taking real data and trying to force it to the model the IPCC and such use which is wrong and a lie, because of his beleifs!

4 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

OK, I stand corrected, and will apologise for that, but not for tmcom AGAIN not citing where he got the data.  I don't feel a need to be chasing down his sources - for a start, surely there are more tide gauges in Sydney Harbour - it is HUGE, and without seeing the context of what he posted, it is not possible to comment further.  Especially when his only point seems to be that BOM are doing 'something' wrong....

Tmcom, CITE YOUR DAM SOURCES.

Indeed, and to examine this further and find relevance to the topic would involve looking at geology/oceanography, ocean currents, tidal movements at micro and macro scales, and the like.

Given that he can't even learn how to cite, tmcom's chances of understanding even the basics here are less than zero. 

 

3 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

I've given up on that.  I'm mostly just talking to the wall.  It listens better and sometimes I thin it understands more.

Anyway, I've reached some very boring data work on my next project and answering tmcom's posts gives me something to do as a break.

Doug

Yeah, the basics, (l will admit that l screwed up the years) here are the basics from an expert, taking all variables into account, and he says it is down 6cm.

https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6066635998001

And he also says this guage represents the Pacific Ocean, which covers most of our planet, yeah,......basic!

http://media.bom.gov.au/social/blog/1983/state-of-the-climate-2018/

But lets hear what the BOM and the CSIRO have to say up to 2018.

So according to this chart, we should be seeing at least a 24cm sea level rise Australia wide, or at least for Sydney Harbor, at least a 20cm rise, lol, not happening.

I know they try to get out of no rise by crapping on about different rates, which explains why the BOM manager states 10cm rise in Sydney H, but he is still way off.

Compare the 1859 Fort, D, with enough present day ones, and the 10cm or 20cm should be easily visible in some, but there is nothing!!!

 

So that means that the CSIRO and BOM are intentionally lying, or the guy at Fort D, is?

http://files.ozblogistan.com.au/sites/4/2019/08/07123535/Fort-Denison-Story.pdf

Sounds like a rational, intelligent scientist to me, which holds back on Youtube, but says it outright in the PDF.

Quote

It is polite and essential that the world population should avoid incorrect climate nonsense. We need to divert the alarmist energy to caring for the planet.Cease polluting the oceans. Prevent development of flood prone land and threatened coastal zones that have been,and will always be,subject to flooding.

So multiple image comparisons don't show any sea level rise, (Fort, D, my contribution) the expert above shows it dropping by 6cm, and with the exception of 1974 rising by 30cm in one day only, which is a fluke, sea levels Are Not Rising!

As l and others have been saying, over and f....ing over, big organizations, going after billion dollar grants, is what is driving manipulating charts, and lying to the world, and individuals unable to see their own blinders, follow alone.

All it takes is looking at a mark on a wall or wood over a long enough time period, (acting as a sea guage) over a year to overcome all variables, to really see if sea levels are rising, (this is assuming the mark was made 20, or more years ago) and this is on stable land. I have heard people who have done this, and no change,...l won't quote Mark Twain again, but seriously this is Flat Earth with more ribbons!

Edited January 24, 2020 by tmcom

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, tmcom said:

Yeah, the manager of the BOM is taking real data and trying to force it to the model the IPCC and such use which is wrong and a lie, because of his beleifs!

 

Yeah, the basics, (l will admit that l screwed up the years) here are the basics from an expert, taking all variables into account, and he says it is down 6cm.

https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6066635998001

And he also says this guage represents the Pacific Ocean, which covers most of our planet, yeah,......basic!

http://media.bom.gov.au/social/blog/1983/state-of-the-climate-2018/

But lets hear what the BOM and the CSIRO have to say up to 2018.

So according to this chart, we should be seeing at least a 24cm sea level rise Australia wide, or at least for Sydney Harbor, at least a 20cm rise, lol, not happening.

I know they try to get out of no rise by crapping on about different rates, which explains why the BOM manager states 10cm rise in Sydney H, but he is still way off.

Compare the 1859 Fort, D, with enough present day ones, and the 10cm or 20cm should be easily visible in some, but there is nothing!!!

 

So that means that the CSIRO and BOM are intentionally lying, or the guy at Fort D, is?

http://files.ozblogistan.com.au/sites/4/2019/08/07123535/Fort-Denison-Story.pdf

Sounds like a rational, intelligent scientist to me, which holds back on Youtube, but says it outright in the PDF.

So multiple image comparisons don't show any sea level rise, (Fort, D, my contribution) the expert above shows it dropping by 6cm, and with the exception of 1974 rising by 30cm in one day only, which is a fluke, sea levels Are Not Rising!

As l and others have been saying, over and f....ing over, big organizations, going after billion dollar grants, is what is driving manipulating charts, and lying to the world, and individuals unable to see their own blinders, follow alone.

All it takes is looking at a mark on a wall or wood over a long enough time period, (acting as a sea guage) over a year to overcome all variables, to really see if sea levels are rising, (this is assuming the mark was made 20, or more years ago) and this is on stable land. I have heard people who have done this, and no change,...l won't quote Mark Twain again, but seriously this is Flat Earth with more ribbons!

The charts state the mean global sea level.  To quote from the 2018 report:

Quote

... Global average sea level has risen by more than 20 cm since 1880, but the rate varies from place to place. ...

The terms "mean" and "average" are interchangeable.  Sometimes it is referred to as expected value in the context of probability.  For example, the sum of 1,000 rolls, of a six-sided die, will be close to 3,500.  Accordingly, the expected value for a single roll of a six-sided die is 3.5.  It's like you're saying, "because I rolled a one, I can't roll a six."

Looking at the SkyNews report we see the same graphic you provided in post #102. Now we can see that the image is courtesy of photographer Thomas Joannes.  The information in the graphic, if actaully sourced from BOM (as Bolt purports), is not annual mean - but the, on most occasions, the highest monthly mean observation for that year.  Specifically: 1914 - May; 1924 - April; 1934 - April; 1944 - April; 1954 - March; 1964 - June; 1974 - June; 1984 - June (2nd Highest); 1994 - January; 2004 - May; 2014 - June; and, 2019 - March (3rd Highest) .  So the graphic appearing on The Bolt Report is deceptive with particular regard to the purported observation for 2014.  According to BOM the highest monthly mean sea level observed at Fort Denison was 1.083 observed in May.

It kind of raises the apprehension that Dan Fitzhenry's report is a little tendentious if not deceitful.

The estimates for sea-levels can be found at:

https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-projections/coastal-marine/marine-explorer/#

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Golden Duck

[Habitat]

  

This chart I find interesting. It is fairly self explanatory, but certainly gives little credence to the idea that climate change means more extreme weather events, like floods. Allowance has to be made for the building of two dams on the river, which have some mitigating effect, one around mid-20th century, and the other in the late 1970's. The mitigation would only work if the dams were relatively low, and even then, that would have been little effect on the monster floods of the past, when the population was minimal. Even allowing for that, the difference between the 19th century, and subsequent years is stark. Given that a repeat of the 1974 event would be hugely destructive, and a return of something of the scale of the 1893 event would effectively destroy the place in a way that no previous natural disaster has, in the country's history, have we just been lucky, or is it really  a trend of less extreme flood events, contrary to climate change alarmism ?

Edited January 24, 2020 by Habitat

[Alchopwn]

7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

  

This chart I find interesting. It is fairly self explanatory, but certainly gives little credence to the idea that climate change means more extreme weather events, like floods. Allowance has to be made for the building of two dams on the river, which have some mitigating effect, one around 20th century, and the other in the late 1970's. The mitigation would only work if the dams were relatively low, and even then, that would have been little effect on the monster floods of the past, when the population was minimal. Even allowing for that, the difference between the 19th century, and subsequent years is stark. Given that a repeat of the 1974 event would be hugely destructive, and a return of something of the scale of the 1893 event would effectively destroy the place in a way that no previous natural disaster has, in the country's history, have we just been lucky, or is it really  a trend of less extreme flood events, contrary to climate change alarmism ?

Brisbane has flooded in 1974, 2011, 2013, 2017 and 2019.  One would assume they have been building new flood defenses.  Does that factor in to these calculations?

[tmcom]

3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

The charts state the mean global sea level.  To quote from the 2018 report:

The terms "mean" and "average" are interchangeable.  Sometimes it is referred to as expected value in the context of probability.  For example, the sum of 1,000 rolls, of a six-sided die, will be close to 3,500.  Accordingly, the expected value for a single roll of a six-sided die is 3.5.  It's like you're saying, "because I rolled a one, I can't roll a six."

Looking at the SkyNews report we see the same graphic you provided in post #102. Now we can see that the image is courtesy of photographer Thomas Joannes.  The information in the graphic, if actaully sourced from BOM (as Bolt purports), is not annual mean - but the, on most occasions, the highest monthly mean observation for that year.  Specifically: 1914 - May; 1924 - April; 1934 - April; 1944 - April; 1954 - March; 1964 - June; 1974 - June; 1984 - June (2nd Highest); 1994 - January; 2004 - May; 2014 - June; and, 2019 - March (3rd Highest) .  So the graphic appearing on The Bolt Report is deceptive with particular regard to the purported observation for 2014.  According to BOM the highest monthly mean sea level observed at Fort Denison was 1.083 observed in May.

It kind of raises the apprehension that Dan Fitzhenry's report is a little tendentious if not deceitful.

The estimates for sea-levels can be found at:

https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-projections/coastal-marine/marine-explorer/#

 

Agreed that last year it was down instead of up, but it is down over 1 year, (or averaged, which removes all anomalies) when sea levels are supposed to be accelerating, (previously link).

I personally believe that the manager of the BOM, has issues, which is why he tries so hard to force a peg into a hole, NASA, IPCC and the CSIRO hard to tell.

PS if you average the second last one, with 2019, then it is less of a drop, but when compared with 1914, the ocean level has still dropped.

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by tmcom

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

Brisbane has flooded in 1974, 2011, 2013, 2017 and 2019.  One would assume they have been building new flood defenses.  Does that factor in to these calculations?

The only floods of any significance were in 1974 and 2011, the former much bigger. The only defences against floods, are as mentioned above, the two dams. The 2011 flood was allegedly worsened by a reluctance to release water from the main dam, in a timely fashion, the ability of these dams to act as flood mitigation devices, is quite limited, seeing as millions of people depend on them for water supply, and anything less that 50% full is not acceptable for water security. An interesting aside to the history of floods in the river, is that early settlers were able to ascertain from the local natives, that much bigger floods than the 1841 event had occurred in the past, as much as three metres higher. That would be a disaster of epic proportions today.

[Essan]

Whilst climate change may mean more floods and more droughts, it doesn't necessarily mean that everywhere will get both.   Bearing in mind that flooding in Brissie is largely determined by rainfall much further inland

Mind, didn't they just have record rainfall in Brissie?   In the middle of a drought ....

[Doug1029]

10 hours ago, tmcom said:

And he also says this guage represents the Pacific Ocean, which covers most of our planet, yeah,......basic!

He says that Sydney is located next to the Pacific Ocean.  He did not say it represents the Pacific Ocean.  There's quite a difference.  San Francisco Bay is also located next to the Pacific Ocean and shows a 1.9mm/yr rate of rise at the mouth of the bay.

The low variation shown by tidal records in Sydney Harbor is likely at least partly the result of different wind directions and intensities.  Thus, a straight-line model which averages these out, is more-likely to produce an accurate result.  I don't know if anybody has investigated the reason for the recent drop in readings shown by the Fort Denison Gauge, but it would be interesting to say the least.

Doug

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, Essan said:

Whilst climate change may mean more floods and more droughts, it doesn't necessarily mean that everywhere will get both.   Bearing in mind that flooding in Brissie is largely determined by rainfall much further inland

Mind, didn't they just have record rainfall in Brissie?   In the middle of a drought ....

Happens a lot.  Our 1980 drought was interrupted by a 5-inch downpour on September 30.  After that, it went right back to the drought.  Also, even a record rain may not be enough to make up for past deficits.

Doug

[Doug1029]

On 1/24/2020 at 12:24 AM, Golden Duck said:

The terms "mean" and "average" are interchangeable.

That's true if the population is symmetrical.  If it isn't, "average" refers to the arithmetic average, but "mean" refers to that point where fifty percent of observations fall on either side of it.  Usually it's not an important distinction, but there are times when it makes a difference.

Doug

[+joc]

28 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

That's true if the population is symmetrical.  If it isn't, "average" refers to the arithmetic average, but "mean" refers to that point where fifty percent of observations fall on either side of it.  Usually it's not an important distinction, but there are times when it makes a difference.

Doug

There are other times when peoples actions make a difference.....or not....

Prince Charles flew 16,000 miles in just 11 days using three private jets and one helicopter before proudly posing with Greta Thunberg in Davos

Prince Charles took three flights on private jets and a helicopter before meeting the activist Greta Thunberg

After an impassioned speech on climate on Wednesday, he took a fourth private jet from Switzerland to Israel

His flight travel totalled over 16,000 miles in less than a fortnight at an estimated cost of £280k to taxpayer

[Doug1029]

4 minutes ago, joc said:

There are other times when peoples actions make a difference.....or not....

Prince Charles flew 16,000 miles in just 11 days using three private jets and one helicopter before proudly posing with Greta Thunberg in Davos

Prince Charles took three flights on private jets and a helicopter before meeting the activist Greta Thunberg

After an impassioned speech on climate on Wednesday, he took a fourth private jet from Switzerland to Israel

His flight travel totalled over 16,000 miles in less than a fortnight at an estimated cost of £280k to taxpayer

While I was using the term "population" in a statistical sense, I see your point about Prince Charles.  That was a huge carbon footprint for just one speech.  It sets a very poor example.

Doug

[+joc]

10 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

While I was using the term "population" in a statistical sense, I see your point about Prince Charles.  That was a huge carbon footprint for just one speech.  It sets a very poor example.

Doug

Unfortunately the list is long...beginning with Al Gore.  Certainly not ending with King in Waiting Charles.

[Doug1029]

31 minutes ago, joc said:

Unfortunately the list is long...beginning with Al Gore.  Certainly not ending with King in Waiting Charles.

Gore was mostly right; although, things aren't moving as fast as scientists thought they would in 2006.

Only one of Gore's ten predictions was flat-out wrong and its problem was that he didn't allow enough time for glaciers on Kilimanjaro to melt.  Mostly, that's still the problem.  Not enough time has elapsed to prove him wrong on his other points.  When that time does elapse there will probably be some more wrong predictions, but by then, Gore's Inconvenient Truth will be hopelessly obsolete.  For that matter, it already is.  Gore updated it in 2016 and even that is falling behind the curve.

Here in Oklahoma, climate change is moving along.  Temps are 2F above what they were in 1900.  That's below the global average, but it's still up.  Rainfall along I-35 south of OKC is a full nine inches higher than it was in 1980 - that's in Oklahoma Climate Division 8, the Oklahoma climate division closest to you.  All this extra rain has produced a fantastic crop of eastern red-cedar.  So we're seeing shifts in plant communities exactly as predicted by climate change theory.

I tried to correlate our extra rainfall with the lack of ice cover on the Arctic Ocean.  The result was on the very edge of significance.  I decided that wasn't sufficient evidence to conclude a connection.  Still planning to test evaporation from irrigated fields as a source of that water, but I don't have very good data.  Probably won't be able to do the test.

Our extra precip is arriving mostly in the spring - April, May and June.  The prevailing storm tracks at that time of year come from the Pacific so what's falling on Oklahoma is probably water that evaporated from the Pacific Ocean.  That suggests a possible ENSO tie-in.

I am in the process of measuring eastern red-cedar stocking changes in Oklahoma over time.  I have areal photos going back to 1991 and am in the process of selecting sample sections - 300+.  Should be done with that by the middle of next week and can actually start measuring stocking.  I am expecting to find accelerating coverage of the surface.  Once I have that, I try to correlate coverage increases with high precip.  If that works, I have proven a link between climate change and eastern red-cedar stocking.  SO:  the solution to the red-cedar problem is:  stop global warming and bring the CO2 concentration down to about 300 ppm.  Either that, or we're going to have to chop down an awful lot of cedars.

Doug

Edited January 26, 2020 by Doug1029