Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.

# The Irrational Climate Emergency

## Recommended Posts

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!

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.

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.

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

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.

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.

And here is the NOAA chart, (NOAA, and the BOM, can have valid data, mixed in with their BS data)

And the CSIRO as well as NASA, and BOM and IPCC, go with this one.

Or we in AU, should be seeing a 20cm rise, we are obviously not!

And for laughs this is what NASA uses.

Which the BOM or the deranged manager is trying to push, (he is pushing for a 10cm rise, eventhough it has dropped).

And Fitzhenry, has admitted that climate change is BS, (PDF link l posted here or elsewhere).

And visually, no rise.

We can keep this up, but since this is like convincing a Catholic that God doesn't exist, l will bow out.

• 1

##### Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, tmcom said:

And here is the NOAA chart, (NOAA, and the BOM, can have valid data, mixed in with their BS data)

And the CSIRO as well as NASA, and BOM and IPCC, go with this one.

Or we in AU, should be seeing a 20cm rise, we are obviously not!

And for laughs this is what NASA uses.

Which the BOM or the deranged manager is trying to push, (he is pushing for a 10cm rise, eventhough it has dropped).

And Fitzhenry, has admitted that climate change is BS, (PDF link l posted here or elsewhere).

And visually, no rise.

We can keep this up, but since this is like convincing a Catholic that God doesn't exist, l will bow out.

BOM Manager? Who are you even talking about? Your conclusion about gauge Fort Denison has failed as it's based on lies.

Fitzhenry has been shown to be incompetent, but you still want to worship him and swallow whatever feeds you.

BTW, your photo from the 1850 looks noticeably lower than later photos too.  Another fail.

You couldn't comprehend what Plimer was saying.  80,000 elements?  33 different version of CO2?

Personally, I find the graphs meaningless. Theres, nothing to say how accurate the regression model is; or which model is used. And, again you've posted content with no provenance.  Those graphs look old and outdated.

Your stuck in your own groundhog day.  You keep coming back same BS after it's been explained how useless it is.

Run if you want; but, it's your thread and your discussion. Cognitive dissonance won't allow to commit, so you project motivated reasoning. What's your motivation why are you attached to Fitzhenry and his lies.

If muster up anything, make sure it's new.  You sound like a cracked record.

Edited by Golden Duck

##### Share on other sites

Fact remains: the sea level in Sydney harbour has as much bearing on global average sea levels as a small pebble in Katmandu does to the height of Chomalungma.   It's totally irrelevant.   Unless the Earth is flat.

• 1

##### Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

BOM Manager? Who are you even talking about? Your conclusion about gauge Fort Denison has failed as it's based on lies.

Fitzhenry has been shown to be incompetent, but you still want to worship him and swallow whatever feeds you.

BTW, your photo from the 1850 looks noticeably lower than later photos too.  Another fail.

Lol, pretty obvious what is happening if you read between the lines, and the 1859 Fort, D, image with the 2006 or 2019, shows no change, since you are clearly not running any image comparisons, (l have never used anything before 1859).

33 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You couldn't comprehend what Plimer was saying.  80,000 elements?  33 different version of CO2?

Personally, I find the graphs meaningless. Theres, nothing to say how accurate the regression model is; or which model is used. And, again you've posted content with no provenance.  Those graphs look old and outdated.

Of course you do, l guess that means you ignore NASA charts showing sea level rises,

33 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Your stuck in your own groundhog day.  You keep coming back same BS after it's been explained how useless it is.

Run if you want; but, it's your thread and your discussion. Cognitive dissonance won't allow to commit, so you project motivated reasoning. What's your motivation why are you attached to Fitzhenry and his lies.

If muster up anything, make sure it's new.  You sound like a cracked record.

Blah, blah, blah, it isn't useless, unless someone who has an unatrual fixation on impending doom, part 6, is reading it.And l was going to drop this, as a religious discussion is unwinnable, but....

Tasmania also matches as does Australians frickin coastline.

But we can ignore Australia and the three major oceans surrounding it?

You make a factual error, by stating that l used 1850 as a visual reference, then say there is a difference when there clearly isn't, Call my sources rubbish when they are not, Call me names, when l have the facts on my side, Choose to ignore charts, when they represent dodgy datasets and valid ones, and so forth. I suggest dropping this, since you entertaining others, but at your expense.

Quote

In addition, modern tide gauges located at Hobart and Spring Bay on either side of the Port Arthur site, on the same coast, show no sea level rise since their installation during the 1980s [18]

The weight of physical and documentary evidence shows that sea level rise around Tasmania, and indeed Australia as a whole, is only very slight, and that this study is seriously in error. The reason may well be the over-reliance on statistical probability modelling at the expense of physical and documentary evidence.

20 minutes ago, Essan said:

Fact remains: the sea level in Sydney harbour has as much bearing on global average sea levels as a small pebble in Katmandu does to the height of Chomalungma.   It's totally irrelevant.   Unless the Earth is flat.

And represents the Pacific Ocean!

##### Share on other sites

So Professor Coroly, (CSIRO atmospheric expert) who says that AU contributing 1.3% of the 3% of 0.04% total CO2 global emissions is rubbish, (he says that the 0.04% is right) but back in 2011 he agrees, (this global warming hysteria, corrupts and makes people clinically insane) so an expert contradicts himself, with key data.

Notice what he says about sea levels, no rise in AU, for 50 to 70 years, and a very slight rise on the top half of the planet.

This is becoming more and more crazy, and the faithful keep buying it, (sorry herd).

• 1

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tmcom said:

And represents the Pacific Ocean!

And represents about 0.001% of the Pacific Ocean

##### Share on other sites
12 hours ago, tmcom said:

Notice what he says about sea levels, no rise in AU, for 50 to 70 years, and a very slight rise on the top half of the planet.

Thought you said that couldn't happen because all oceans are connected.

He is also dead wrong about that no sea level rise in Australia:  I ran the analysis.  The guy is a fraud.

Doug

• 1

##### Share on other sites

Brief update in that cedar climate paper:  finished most of the rest of the analysis this afternoon.  All that did was reiterate the previous analysis.

It appears that the paper will be published as part of a peer-reviewed proceedings to be held in August.  They are paying my way to it, that is, if all goes well.

Doug

• 1

##### Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Thought you said that couldn't happen because all oceans are connected.

He is also dead wrong about that no sea level rise in Australia:  I ran the analysis.  The guy is a fraud.

Doug

"I ran the analysis", well that is up there with "Scientists Say", " the guy is a fraud",lol, and this is from someone who says that Sydney harbor goes down while the Pacific ocean goes up!

Quote

Well-informed people know that the IPCC and other alarmist individuals and organizations constantly make exaggerated claims of global catastrophe that are unsupported by true scientists, but which are repeated constantly as a mantra of climate virtue designed to frighten the weak and the gullible, including politicians; the threat of rising sea levels forms a significant part of this commentary.

Stupid being another word for gullible.

Quote

Watson (2011) reported that Fort Denison showed sea level rise of 68mm between 1940 and 2000, with a decelerating trend of 0.04mm/yr. You, Lord and Watson (2009) reported a linear regression trend of 0.63±0.14mm/year, which over a century is 63mm, or about the height of a matchbox.These trends are BELOW global estimates of sea level rise of about 3.1±0.4mm /year reported by Judith Curry in 2018.

Yes, some rise, but it is laughable, (and as l showed previously a drop can kill off most of the rise).

Quote

9The tide gauge observations for Sydney and environs are replicated in many other places across the globe. One example used here because of the longevity of the recording is for Honolulu, where sea level rise is close to 1.5mm/year, measured over the period 1905 to the present.

So Honolulu, or another part of the planet produces similar results to Fort D, lol, so l guess that the master..... sea level accelerating is BS in its purest form!

But of course this guy Dr G M Derrick, is a fraud, since he is a Geoscientists.

And like me he can see humor in global stupidity, (buying this crap).

Plenty of tree ring references in this, but don't worry Doug, you will get plenty of cash for your paper.

And some quotes page 26.

Quote

“. . The greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist” . Prof. Harold Lewis

Clearly an expert!

Quote

Excuse me while I puke.”Prof. Raymond Bradley (Mann’s supervisor at University of Massachusetts)

Page 83 covers Fort D, and our dimwitted Sydney premier, (which explains why this article has a pre-school vibe).

Pg 93 shows that Gore got the cyclone directions wrong, "the herd go insane".

Yes, overwhelming evidence, but will the goon squad actually read and think about it? I doubt it, And just like a Flat Earther, who proves he is wrong then pushes more data about a Flat Earth the next day, l expect the same here.

People with a religious fervor will cling onto Swiss Cheese data, regardless of the failure rate. After all if a Flat Earther can come back for more then anyone can.

54 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Brief update in that cedar climate paper:  finished most of the rest of the analysis this afternoon.  All that did was reiterate the previous analysis.

It appears that the paper will be published as part of a peer-reviewed proceedings to be held in August.  They are paying my way to it, that is, if all goes well.

Doug

Gee that is thrilling news, l guess that makes you an expert, (read PDF link above)!

• 1

##### Share on other sites
On 2/15/2020 at 2:36 AM, tmcom said:

"I ran the analysis", well that is up there with "Scientists Say", " the guy is a fraud",lol, and this is from someone who says that Sydney harbor goes down while the Pacific ocean goes up!

I can post it for your edification and amusement.  Would you like to see it?  That way you can check it for errors.

But it wouldn't do any good as you don't read what I post, or you'd know that the analysis shows that Sydney Harbor sea level has risen at a rate of 0.103m/century since 1914, or about 4 inches.

Watson (2011) reported that Fort Denison showed sea level rise of 68mm between 1940 and 2000, with a decelerating trend of 0.04mm/yr. You, Lord and Watson (2009) reported a linear regression trend of 0.63±0.14mm/year, which over a century is 63mm, or about the height of a matchbox.These trends are BELOW global estimates of sea level rise of about 3.1±0.4mm /year reported by Judith Curry in 2018.

I'd have to agree with that one.  Only I wouldn't call the IPCC alarmists:  their predictions have been spot on.

Watson (2011) reported that Fort Denison showed sea level rise of 68mm between 1940 and 2000, with a decelerating trend of 0.04mm/yr. You, Lord and Watson (2009) reported a linear regression trend of 0.63±0.14mm/year, which over a century is 63mm, or about the height of a matchbox.These trends are BELOW global estimates of sea level rise of about 3.1±0.4mm /year reported by Judith Curry in 2018.

True.  Australia and vicinity has the least sea level rise of any place on the planet.  That matchbox is about 2.5" high.  One wonders why they started with 1940, as sea level rise has been pretty-much steady since 1900.

Before I trust your info on Honolulu, I'd have to run my own analysis.

Gore is not a scientist and never has been.  You have defeated a strawman.

Exactly what was Ray Bradley's quote?

On 2/15/2020 at 2:36 AM, tmcom said:

Gee that is thrilling news, l guess that makes you an expert, (read PDF link above)!

Actually, it does.  I am the only person on earth who has looked at the combined effects of temperature and precip on Oklahoma's changing forest types.

And, no, I won't make lots of money on the presentation.  My salary has already covered the costs of doing the research and I'll be reimbursed for about two-thirds of my travel expenses.  That's all.

Doug