The Irrational Climate Emergency

[tmcom]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

Fitzhenry is cherry-picking the BOM data.  There definitely is data for the years 1999 and 2000.  I'm not sure why you say there isn't.

He is cherry picking averages, not years, (and he is not using BOM data, since those idiots keep saying it is rising)  but if you are really concearned then average your own data from the previous Fort D, chart. There is data from 2000, but not for the previous average chart l showed.

59 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

The gauges on Fiji (There are two.) are located on soft sediment and are slowly settling.  Their readings are not accurate and even if they were, they show rising sea levels.  They don't support your claims.  There are a number of tide gauges in that area that show about the same thing as Sydney Harbor:  sea level rise of 0.103m/century.

The farther one gets from Australia, the greater the sea level rise.  The world average is about one foot per century, three times your rate.

I can see mismatches in your pictures.  Whoever did them wasn't very good at remote sensing.

Why don't you do a full-scale write-up of your photo study and submit it to a professional publication?  I suggest you get some help with the writing as you will stand a better chance of getting published if you write in a scientific format.

You don't get to ignore data.  If you have the data and choose not to use it, you must explain why.  I used ALL available data, including the partial year of 1914.  There are four gaps in the data, one about a year long, one two months long and two one-month gaps.  As they are in the mid-parts of the dataset, I don't think they had much effect on the averages.

Could you explain why I could find that data for 2000 so easily and you couldn't?

Doug

Yes, excuses,.... maybe l should repost the AU, wide sea level guage study showing that Fort D is spot on, and Au entire coastline facing the Pacific and the other two oceans matches with their data.

Get if published, lol, the money is in the BS, not reality.

43 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

It may be obvious to you but it is not to me,  Why do you think image comparisons are reliable data?  

For 10 years maybe not, 100 or 150 years with at least a 45cm difference, with a 1800's image and present day, it would be very obvious.

 

This conversation goes around and around, with the main posters forgetting what l previously posted and want it again, so they can find any reason why it isn't true, or ignore it. I doubt it is a plan of attack, more alone the lines of individuals who have a lifetime of brainwashing, and looking up at NASA, and cannot accept either, as invalid.

So why should l accept that the world will end by the year 2030, (or be f..ed up) when the UN, and its scientific predictions have failed for the last 50 years???? Yes, exactly, only a madman would accept a institution failing over and over or lying to them over and over.

As a well known author has said, "The herd think together, and go mad together, but they wake up one by one"!

[Golden Duck]

21 minutes ago, tmcom said:

He is cherry picking averages, not years, (and he is not using BOM data, since those idiots keep saying it is rising)  but if you are really concearned then average your own data from the previous Fort D, chart. There is data from 2000, but not for the previous average chart l showed.

This has been pointed out to you before.  Fitzhenry is cherry-picking monthly averages.  He is usually taking the highest observed monthly mean to represent that year; except for the last year, where he uses the third highest.

Monthly sea levels for Fort Denison (Sydney) - 1914 to 2019
Mth	Year	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	St Devn	BOM Rank	fitz	Variation
5	1914	0.47	1.71	1.111	0.482	1	1.11	0.001
4	1924	0.16	2.02	0.98	0.421	1	0.98	0
4	1934	0.19	1.99	0.98	0.403	1	0.98	0
4	1944	0.14	1.96	0.971	0.41	1	0.97	0.001
3	1954	0.1	1.84	0.997	0.408	1	1	0.003
6	1964	0.21	2.19	1.09	0.41	1	1.09	0
6	1974	0.1	2.2	1.086	0.439	1	1.09	0.004
6	1984	0.2	2.27	1.02	0.415	2	1.02	0
1	1994	0.06	1.98	1.038	0.429	1	1.04	0.002
5	2004	0.276	2.036	1.078	0.398	1	1.08	0.002
6	2014	0.343	2.258	1.121	0.405	1	1.12	0.001
3	2019	0.149	1.952	1.051	0.396	3	1.05	0.001

 

21 minutes ago, tmcom said:

This conversation goes around and around, with the main posters forgetting what l previously posted and want it again, ...

It's your thread.  You're the one making the claim - saying you're right and climate change scientists are wrong.  If you're confident of your proof it shouldn't be onerous to provide it when asked.  Your previous thread was shut down because you refused to engage in the discussion you started - not to suppress anything.

You're guilty of doing exactly what you're protesting against.  You complain when authorities use averages are used when there's no data; but, your want to use averages in place of data.

[Tatetopa]

3 hours ago, tmcom said:

So why should l accept that the world will end by the year 2030, (or be f..ed up) when the UN, and its scientific predictions have failed for the last 50 years???? Yes, exactly, only a madman would accept a institution failing over and over or lying to them over and over.

You shouldn't.

 

3 hours ago, tmcom said:

For 10 years maybe not, 100 or 150 years with at least a 45cm difference, with a 1800's image and present day, it would be very obvious.

Does that mean you know exact date and time?  Have you backtracked to find out when high tide is on those dates and times, or do you rely on a caption that says "high tide"?   High tide is not the same every day  There are seasonal min and max high tides too aren't there?

Sorry to ask again if you clarified that in other posts.

[Peter B]

On 2/9/2020 at 8:39 PM, tmcom said:

Here is our top climate expert!

If we don't use coal at all, our fires would have magically disappeared in AU!

THis is f.....brained at its finest!

 

Sorry, but could you point out where in that video anyone said that?

So we reduce CO2 in AU, but 1.3%, of a trace gas, that is 1 out of 80,000 and one out of 32 natural versions of CO2, (just for laughs)...

??

Sorry, could you repeat that, but in English this time, please.

...our fires wouldn't have happened.

I can gurantee this f.....wit, that if l threw a match into a national park in the 1930's in summertime, (CO2 much lower) after 10 or more years of no fires occurring it would burn like hell.

Sorry, who said it wouldn't have happened? Please stop strawmanning the arguments you object to.

This d...head is going to guarentee that Labor loses elections for the forseeable future, and l thank the dimwitted Greens party for that!

*shrug*

That's his business. In the meantime, would a bit of civility hurt?

I love how these idiots talk, "people are frustrated, and our numbers are growing" sure apart from AU, UK, US, and only loonies are frustrated, since the wider majority don't listen to them anymore, and will consider nobile options if they come across one glueing themselves to public transport.

"Nobile"? What's that, precious?

Why do you express such anger at suggestions for reducing carbon dioxide emissions? As I've said before, so many of them are beneficial economically, let alone from an environmental point of view. Perhaps this might give you an idea:

[tmcom]

4 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

This has been pointed out to you before.  Fitzhenry is cherry-picking monthly averages.  He is usually taking the highest observed monthly mean to represent that year; except for the last year, where he uses the third highest.

Monthly sea levels for Fort Denison (Sydney) - 1914 to 2019
Mth	Year	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	St Devn	BOM Rank	fitz	Variation
5	1914	0.47	1.71	1.111	0.482	1	1.11	0.001
4	1924	0.16	2.02	0.98	0.421	1	0.98	0
4	1934	0.19	1.99	0.98	0.403	1	0.98	0
4	1944	0.14	1.96	0.971	0.41	1	0.97	0.001
3	1954	0.1	1.84	0.997	0.408	1	1	0.003
6	1964	0.21	2.19	1.09	0.41	1	1.09	0
6	1974	0.1	2.2	1.086	0.439	1	1.09	0.004
6	1984	0.2	2.27	1.02	0.415	2	1.02	0
1	1994	0.06	1.98	1.038	0.429	1	1.04	0.002
5	2004	0.276	2.036	1.078	0.398	1	1.08	0.002
6	2014	0.343	2.258	1.121	0.405	1	1.12	0.001
3	2019	0.149	1.952	1.051	0.396	3	1.05	0.001

 

It's your thread.  You're the one making the claim - saying you're right and climate change scientists are wrong.  If you're confident of your proof it shouldn't be onerous to provide it when asked.  Your previous thread was shut down because you refused to engage in the discussion you started - not to suppress anything.

You're guilty of doing exactly what you're protesting against.  You complain when authorities use averages are used when there's no data; but, your want to use averages in place of data.

Blah, blah, l am saying the bent climate scientists are wrong, becuase they cannot give up a lifetime of brainwashing or are after the money.

My previous thread was shut down, for obvious reasons, not becuase l didn't want to discuss it.

Your guilty of ignoring all evidence that global warming in the BS context is rubbish. As for the rest, it makes little sense?

NASA, BOM, IPCC EPA, (which Trump is thanking pulling most of their funding) is what l have used, and it shows substantial sea level rises in the last 20 years, that according to the Fort, D, and the other one at Tasmania, and the frickin AU wide sea level guages which all match, (previously posted that, so if people forget then) show a 6cm sea level loss.

You will believe in this Flat Earth part 2 no matter what l say, and, no need to repeat the quote.

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

You shouldn't.

Does that mean you know exact date and time?  Have you backtracked to find out when high tide is on those dates and times, or do you rely on a caption that says "high tide"?   High tide is not the same every day  There are seasonal min and max high tides too aren't there?

Sorry to ask again if you clarified that in other posts.

I ran Fort D, 1859 against Dort D, again every 10 years recently up to 2019, which backs up their datasets, that nothing is happening, (apart from minor changes).

54 minutes ago, Peter B said:

Sorry, but could you point out where in that video anyone said that???

Sorry, could you repeat that, but in English this time, please.

Try Tony H, in this thread or the Mad World one.

But there are 32 naturally occuring CO2 molocules in our atmosphere, with us creating one of them, and the one we are creating is 0.4% globally, which is a joke.

It is rising but plants love it, and its affect on impending doom is laughable.

0.4 out of 100!

[Golden Duck]

•  

39 minutes ago, tmcom said:

5 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

This has been pointed out to you before.  Fitzhenry is cherry-picking monthly averages.  He is usually taking the highest observed monthly mean to represent that year; except for the last year, where he uses the third highest.

Monthly sea levels for Fort Denison (Sydney) - 1914 to 2019
Mth	Year	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	St Devn	BOM Rank	fitz	Variation
5	1914	0.47	1.71	1.111	0.482	1	1.11	0.001
4	1924	0.16	2.02	0.98	0.421	1	0.98	0
4	1934	0.19	1.99	0.98	0.403	1	0.98	0
4	1944	0.14	1.96	0.971	0.41	1	0.97	0.001
3	1954	0.1	1.84	0.997	0.408	1	1	0.003
6	1964	0.21	2.19	1.09	0.41	1	1.09	0
6	1974	0.1	2.2	1.086	0.439	1	1.09	0.004
6	1984	0.2	2.27	1.02	0.415	2	1.02	0
1	1994	0.06	1.98	1.038	0.429	1	1.04	0.002
5	2004	0.276	2.036	1.078	0.398	1	1.08	0.002
6	2014	0.343	2.258	1.121	0.405	1	1.12	0.001
3	2019	0.149	1.952	1.051	0.396	3	1.05	0.001

 

It's your thread.  You're the one making the claim - saying you're right and climate change scientists are wrong.  If you're confident of your proof it shouldn't be onerous to provide it when asked.  Your previous thread was shut down because you refused to engage in the discussion you started - not to suppress anything.

You're guilty of doing exactly what you're protesting against.  You complain when authorities use averages are used when there's no data; but, your want to use averages in place of data.

Blah, blah, l am saying the bent climate scientists are wrong, becuase they cannot give up a lifetime of brainwashing or are after the money.

My previous thread was shut down, for obvious reasons, not becuase l didn't want to discuss it.

Your guilty of ignoring all evidence that global warming in the BS context is rubbish. As for the rest, it makes little sense?

NASA, BOM, IPCC EPA, (which Trump is thanking pulling most of their funding) is what l have used, and it shows substantial sea level rises in the last 20 years, that according to the Fort, D, and the other one at Tasmania, and the frickin AU wide sea level guages which all match, (previously posted that, so if people forget then) show a 6cm sea level loss.

You will believe in this Flat Earth part 2 no matter what l say, and, no need to repeat the quote.

You've just been shown that Fitzhenry cherry-picks the same data that BOM hosts.  You've been given that link before. Here it is again: http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml

You can see that contrary to what you assert, there is data for 1999 and 2000.  There was no need for you to take an average.

So is Fitzhenry careless, incompetent, or dishonest.

When you're brave enough post the data showing all Australian gauges match.

PS. This pot/kettle behaviour, of yours, is starting to to look embarrassing.  

Edited February 11, 2020 by Golden Duck

[Golden Duck]

48 minutes ago, tmcom said:

there are 32 naturally occuring CO2 molocules in our atmosphere,

Could you list them please?

[tmcom]

Quote

So why should l accept that the world will end by the year 2030, (or be f..ed up) when the UN, and its scientific predictions have failed for the last 50 years???? Yes, exactly, only a madman would accept a institution failing over and over or lying to them over and over.

As a well known author has said, "The herd think together, and go mad together, but they wake up one by one"!

 

[Tatetopa]

6 hours ago, tmcom said:

ran Fort D, 1859 against Dort D, again every 10 years recently up to 2019, which backs up their datasets, that nothing is happening, (apart from minor changes).

When you say you "ran" it, what did you run  photographs or tide gauge records?  

[Tatetopa]

7 hours ago, tmcom said:

But there are 32 naturally occuring CO2 molocules in our atmosphere, with us creating one of them, and the one we are creating is 0.4% globally, which is a joke.

What does this even mean 32 naturally occurring CO2 molecules?  Combinations of all isotopes of carbon and oxygen?  There are three naturally occurring stable isotopes  of carbon discounting short lived specimens made in labs.   There are also 3 naturally occurring stable isotopes of oxygen.  That gives nine combinations.  C12 isotope accounts for 99%+ of naturally occurring carbon.  

What is the reality behind this statement?  Are you suggesting that man only makes CO2 out of C13 or C14 isotopes to get to your .4% number?

Did you make that up or hear it without bothering to understand and check it? Are there any facts behind your statement or just faith?

[Doug1029]

7 hours ago, tmcom said:

But there are 32 naturally occuring CO2 molocules in our atmosphere, with us creating one of them, and the one we are creating is 0.4% globally, which is a joke.

There are 15 stable carbon isotopes and 3 stable oxygen isotopes.  That gives you 45 different possible isotopic arrangements for CO2.

There are 117 chemical elements:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chemical_elements.  Ian Plimer hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.

Be careful mentioning isotopes.  It is isotopic chemistry that identifies coal and oil as the source of most of the increased CO2 in the air.  If I were you, I'd forget about isotopes and pray that nobody remembers that you said it.

Better add high school chemistry to that list of remedial courses you need to take.

Doug

Edited February 11, 2020 by Doug1029

[Golden Duck]

I found the original claim.  It's about ratios, not versions.  It is good obfuscation, though.

Quote

Claim: In every 85,000 molecules of air, just 33 are CO2. For every 33 molecules of CO2, 32 are from Nature and known to be essential to all life on Earth. How can one molecule of the same gas produced by humans be blamed for supposed imminent, irreversible, catastrophic global warming? It cannot.

Assessment: False.

Two hundred years ago, only 24 of those molecules would have been CO2. Today, 33 molecules are – a 40 percent rise of a key greenhouse gas.

The reference to "one molecule" is misleading: By talking ratios, the Galileo Movement obscures the staggering amount of carbon dioxide society has pumped into the air. In the last two centuries, society has dumped 220 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. It added another 110 billion tons via deforestation and land-use changes.

The atmosphere weighs about 5 quadrillion tons, and carbon dioxide, despite our emissions, remains a small component of that. But it grows larger every year. The International Energy Agency expects annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels alone to top 40 billion tons a year by 2030.

The math gets complicated from here, but there is an enormous quantity of molecules in those 330 billon tons of CO2.

Source: International Energy Agency
http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=2143

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/

[Tatetopa]

8 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

There are 15 stable carbon isotopes and 3 stable oxygen isotopes.

Thank you Doug, I thought there were only 3 stable isotopes of carbon as well as oxygen.  My bad.  Sorry for the error in my post.

[tmcom]

9 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

When you say you "ran" it, what did you run  photographs or tide gauge records?  

Both.

9 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

What does this even mean 32 naturally occurring CO2 molecules?  Combinations of all isotopes of carbon and oxygen?  There are three naturally occurring stable isotopes  of carbon discounting short lived specimens made in labs.   There are also 3 naturally occurring stable isotopes of oxygen.  That gives nine combinations.  C12 isotope accounts for 99%+ of naturally occurring carbon.  

What is the reality behind this statement?  Are you suggesting that man only makes CO2 out of C13 or C14 isotopes to get to your .4% number?

Did you make that up or hear it without bothering to understand and check it? Are there any facts behind your statement or just faith?

Yes.

9 hours ago, Tuco's Gas said:

I stopped reading after your claim of 80,000 different elements in the universe. An absurd claim.

Off by about 79, 900. LOL 

Besides, elements not found within our Troposphere would have zilch to do with our planet's biosphere, ie climactic dynamics.

Yes, a new recruit to the faithful wanders into the church of Climate Doom and says something stupid?

80,000 different elements in our atmosphere!

Maybe you can answer my question as to why you and others come back for more when chicken little has cried "the Sky is Falling" for the last 50 years, and failed?

[Tatetopa]

16 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Maybe you can answer my question as to why you and others come back for more when chicken little has cried "the Sky is Falling" for the last 50 years, and failed?

Sure, we keep coming back because you have not presented any plausible argument for the counter proposal. 

Now you have done it again, 80,000 different elements in our atmosphere.  Do you mean components like CFC's  and HCFC's and other industrial compounds? 

[tmcom]

30 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Sure, we keep coming back because you have not presented any plausible argument for the counter proposal.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

True, l made a mistake, this end is nigh crap started in the 60's, so 6, the world will end in a decade failures in a row.

You at least esquire about it, the rest know that it is an unanswerable question, even with their See Spot Run rebuttals.

Overwhelming evidence that they, (the UN backed scientists) have got it 100% wrong over the last 60 years. But this time it is different, lol, true we teach this crap in colleges now, and primary, as they did with Eugenics, but it is still rubbish science, well not rubbish science rubbish propaganda, to squeeze a trillion out of this planet, since this year is our last chance, lol. And next year will definitely be our last chance, but l am sure that in the year 2022, it will absolutely, positively be our last chance, (give us a trillion).

And every year will be our last chance to p....s money away on hysteria, and lies, until the year 2030 arrives and lo and behold, no mess and no disaster, just snake oil scientists, making up excuses again and saying that the year 2040 will definitely be our last.

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Thank you Doug, I thought there were only 3 stable isotopes of carbon as well as oxygen.  My bad.  Sorry for the error in my post.

I had to look it up.  My memory isn't really that good.

Doug

[Doug1029]

On 2/10/2020 at 10:10 PM, tmcom said:

He is cherry picking averages, not years, (and he is not using BOM data, since those idiots keep saying it is rising)  but if you are really concearned then average your own data from the previous Fort D, chart. There is data from 2000, but not for the previous average chart l showed.

If you select the readings by which month best fits your story, that IS cherry-picking.  You can make the dataset more manageable by using only one month, say July, but then you have to use a disclaimer.

The data for that chart came from BOM records.  If it wasn't accurate to begin with, you can't make it accurate by cherry-picking it.

The decision to leave out a year's data on purpose is a decision to bias your sample against that year.  If you decide not to use it, then EXPLAIN why you didn't.

You have fallen victim to a charlatan.

Doug

[Tatetopa]

On 2/11/2020 at 7:28 PM, tmcom said:

Overwhelming evidence that they, (the UN backed scientists) have got it 100% wrong over the last 60 years. But this time it is different, lol, true we teach this crap in colleges now, and primary, as they did with Eugenics, but it is still rubbish science,

tmcom, it is frustrating and exciting to watch the beginning of a new science. Without the current technology including super-computers development would have taken many more years.

It is the same pattern of assumptions, mistakes, and growing understanding that happened in medicine, chemistry, and physics in the past.

Indeed many wacky predictions have been made with understanding and data that is already obsolete.   We learn more, technology improves and real time analysis of complex patterns gets better and better.

You might not believe it, but predictions are getting better.  Still no need to panic though. We evaluate the future based on what we know and act accordingly. 

To believe everything you hear or to believe all of the evidence that contradicts your viewpoint is a conspiracy are equally wrong.

 

 

 

[tmcom]

3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

tmcom, it is frustrating and exciting to watch the beginning of a new science. Without the current technology including super-computers development would have taken many more years.

It is the same pattern of assumptions, mistakes, and growing understanding that happened in medicine, chemistry, and physics in the past.

Indeed many wacky predictions have been made with understanding and data that is already obsolete.   We learn more, technology improves and real time analysis of complex patterns gets better and better.

You might not believe it, but predictions are getting better.  Still no need to panic though. We evaluate the future based on what we know and act accordingly. 

To believe everything you hear or to believe all of the evidence that contradicts your viewpoint is a conspiracy are equally wrong.

https://www.c3headlines.com/2010/11/experts-now-concur-ipcc-climate-models-fail-miserably-at-predicting-cloud-formation-coverage.html

Still looks S...house!

And why do Super computers ignore clouds, as even the most powerful mainframe on the planet cannot handle it.

Until we can develop a true quantum level mainframe, predicting 10 years into our future is BS!

As for the rest, God knows, you are probably saying, newspaper clippings from our past are impossible to fake, (since they are from national archives) and l have a very good point!

And l know that the other one is spitting the dummy.

I averaged the last three groups, and it is still down from 1914, lol.

Yeah, cherry picking, gullible, l am evil, my children are drowning, etc.

Least l am not a brainwashed lemming!

[Doug1029]

On 2/11/2020 at 7:17 PM, Tatetopa said:

Thank you Doug, I thought there were only 3 stable isotopes of carbon as well as oxygen.  My bad.  Sorry for the error in my post.

Three carbon isotopes (C12, C13 and C14) account for most the the carbon in the atmosphere.

Doug

[Doug1029]

4 hours ago, tmcom said:

Least l am not a brainwashed lemming!

Your posts do not present evidence of that.

Doug

[Golden Duck]

11 hours ago, tmcom said:

https://www.c3headlines.com/2010/11/experts-now-concur-ipcc-climate-models-fail-miserably-at-predicting-cloud-formation-coverage.html

Still looks S...house!

And why do Super computers ignore clouds, as even the most powerful mainframe on the planet cannot handle it.

Until we can develop a true quantum level mainframe, predicting 10 years into our future is BS!

As for the rest, God knows, you are probably saying, newspaper clippings from our past are impossible to fake, (since they are from national archives) and l have a very good point!

And l know that the other one is spitting the dummy.

I averaged the last three groups, and it is still down from 1914, lol.

Yeah, cherry picking, gullible, l am evil, my children are drowning, etc.

Least l am not a brainwashed lemming!

The more you try and peddle Fitzhenry's BS, the more embarrassing it is for you.

The May 1914 measurement,  you keep touting as special, is indeed special because it was based on ten observations.  That's ten hourly observations. It wasn't even based on a full cycle of the tides.  The low observation, of 0.470, confirms it as an anomalous monthly record.

You've got a real appetite for BS.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Golden Duck

[tmcom]

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

The more you try and peddle Fitzhenry's BS, the more embarrassing it is for you.

The May 1914 measurement,  you keep touting as special, is indeed special because it was based on ten observations.  That's ten hourly observations. It wasn't even based on a full cycle of the tides.  The low observation, of 0.470, confirms it as an anomalous monthly record.

You've got a real appetite for BS.

Oh, yes l am wrong, and this and that, but to counteract your See Spot Run logic, how about l use the 1974 one, to 2019, still down, when it is supposed to be up and accelerating, according to the Chicken-......t outfits like IPCC, NASA and the EPA, (which Trump is decimating or yanking their funding).

I am not the one that is embarrassing himself!

[Golden Duck]

16 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Oh, yes l am wrong, and this and that, but to counteract your See Spot Run logic, how about l use the 1974 one, to 2019, still down, when it is supposed to be up and accelerating, according to the Chicken-......t outfits like IPCC, NASA and the EPA, (which Trump is decimating or yanking their funding).

I am not the one that is embarrassing himself!

Here's what your mate says...

Quote

Hydrographic Surveyor of NSW Australia Daniel Fitzhenry says data recorded by the Bureau of Meteorology at Fort Denison in the Sydney Harbour is “more accurate than satellite” on sea levels.

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

Notice that Fitzhenry says BOM data is accurate.  Here's the table for you to enjoy again.

It's a fact that Fitzhenry got his figure from the ten hourly observations in May 1914.  Use whatever misnomer you want; but, it betrays your innumeracy.

Now you want to compare the highest recorded monthly mean in 1974 with the third highest monthly mean in 2019.  Why?  What's the reasoning behind this other that to hide something.  The highest monthly mean for 2019 was 1.083.  Fitzhenry rounded the 1974 figure of 1.086.  There's nothing to derive from those observations.

At the bottom of the BOM data table is this statistic.

Quote

Mean sea level = 0.936 (Average monthly means = 0.936)

Perhaps they are including another anomalous monthly mean from July 1916 which only included one observation.  An average of an average is not always a good thing; but, here it works out to be 0.9359.  Excluding the anomalous mean works out to be 0.9354.  Weighting the means by the number of good observations comes to 0.9355.  We're talking less than a millimetre.  The point is that the average of the average is close enough; and here is the data for years you chose in full...

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Average
1974	0.922	0.946	0.916	1.036	1.055	1.086	1.042	0.970	0.956	0.932	0.982	1.012	0.988
2019	0.951	0.992	1.051	1.009	1.083	1.058	1.028	0.990	0.962	0.965	0.998	0.987	1.006

The average monthly mean for 2019 is higher.  By month the 2019 observation is higher on eight occasions.  So your conclusion is wrong again.

It has already been pointed out to you that the Fort Denison data doesn't show a great amount of correlation.  Even a rolling-12 model only gives correlation coefficient (r^2) of 0.26.  In fact, if we remove 1914 from Fitzenry's data we get a prediction of a sea level rise of about 1 mm and r^2 = 0.55.  Not great but better.