Global warming - I don't get it?

[Graeme M]

I'm trying to figure out why the sea level in Sydney harbour has only risen 4mm [ yep 4mm not 4cm or 4ft ] in the last 100 years.
At this rate it will reach the  expert predicted heights in the next 1000 years.

Mike,I'm not sure that is correct. The tide gauge data for Sydney comes from Fort Denison and it shows what looks like about 100mm of rise in the past 100 years. That said, I think Fort Denison is subsiding so actual rise may well be less. Sea level rise is one of my favourite topics when it comes to Global Warming. The general claim is a rise of something like 3mm/year on average globally after various 'adjustments', and claims for acceleration of rate in recent times. I don't believe the data supports that contention at all, but you have to note that sea level rise is also a tricky beast. Some places rise more than others, land subsidence rates also need to be factored in and so on.

Here's the Fort Denison graph, you can get this from an excellent set of historical data at the PSMSL website:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/

[Mike52]

 

I use this one Graeme.
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml

[Graeme M]

That's an interesting one, I like the plot of max, min and mean. That is something I've often pondered and having done a few analyses of sea levels I note that in many cases, mean sea level rises often result from increases in minimums and not so much maximums. In other words, while mean sea level has increased, actual max high water has not. Fort Denison is subsiding and I read elsewhere tonight that in fact subsidence rates appear almost on par with relative tide gauge increases leading to practically no change in sea level at Sydney. No idea if that's true, it was just a comment on a blog.

Here's the data you just referred to as a plot, note the mean and min, but especially the max. That said, the mean seems to reflect my data above showing a rise in mean level of something like 100mm just from eyeballing it.

[Nathan S]

The sceptics lose me because they've had too many bites.
I mean, if you're accused of something that you didn't do, then your first - and only response will be your alibi: "I was at the pub. I never went to the service station". No matter what happened, your alibi won't change, because it is the truth.

Compare this to the sceptics' excuses:
climate change isn't happening;
oh wait maybe it is happening;
volcanoes cause it;
ok, volcanoes don't, it must be forest fires;
oh, so that was bullshit too, how about sun spots;
Dammit, it's just a natural occurrence;
It will be cheaper to adapt;
CO2 is invisible, therefore it can't hurt you;
No, wait, how about we talk about what the Kardashians are up to;
The islands are sinking!

The excuses will never end. The truth will not change.

The truth is simple and consistent. The fact that the "sceptical opinion" has repeatedly morphed into different ideas, shows that it is an opinion looking for a justification.
And that it is bullshit.

[VMX247]

Well there you go, there lies the fault.
They have left the yellow Suzuki Rising Sun out of the equation   

[djr]

The sceptics lose me because they've had too many bites.
I mean, if you're accused of something that you didn't do, then your first - and only response will be your alibi: "I was at the pub. I never went to the service station". No matter what happened, your alibi won't change, because it is the truth.

Compare this to the sceptics' excuses:
climate change isn't happening;
oh wait maybe it is happening;
volcanoes cause it;
ok, volcanoes don't, it must be forest fires;
oh, so that was bullshit too, how about sun spots;
Dammit, it's just a natural occurrence;
It will be cheaper to adapt;
CO2 is invisible, therefore it can't hurt you;
No, wait, how about we talk about what the Kardashians are up to;
The islands are sinking!

The excuses will never end. The truth will not change.

The truth is simple and consistent. The fact that the "sceptical opinion" has repeatedly morphed into different ideas, shows that it is an opinion looking for a justification.
And that it is bullshit.

"Sceptical opinion" is not the only thing that has morphed into  different ideas.
"Global Warming" morphed into "Climate Change" when that idea didn't look so certain, what will be the next different idea from the believers be called.
Its not compulsory to believe, and its not "bullshit" if someone has a different opinion on a subject which still needs a lot of research

[Mick D]

I'm also glad that the " OZONE HOLE " is no longer a problem.

I am so glad that you bought the Man Made "OZONE HOLE" up!
It is great example of "Cause and effect" and then what can be achieved if intelligence and common sense can be allowed to prevail.

FACT; The Stratospheric protective Ozone layer is something that all life on this planet depends upon! FACT!
 
Fact; The "OZONE HOLE" was man made. FACT

In the 1930's DuPont began commercial production of a range of CFC's (Chlorofluorocarbons).
It was thought to be a safe replacement for previous refrigerant gases. It then went on to be used extensively as aerosol-spray propellants etc.

Scientists discovered that CFC's were solely responsible for the destruction and depletion of Stratospheric Ozone.
That destruction of Ozone being the cause of a rapidly growing hole in Earths protective shield.
They pushed and pushed their message, surely all would remember?   I do, very much so. At first it was very difficult for them to get their message across. I think they(Scientists) need to work on their communication skills. Layman's terms.

Countries around the world came together in urgent meetings.
In 1978 The Montreal Protocol was adopted as a framework for international cooperation regarding CFC control on the basis of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.


Still many decades to go before complete restoration of our Ozone protective shield, but at least that cessation of all life on Earth count down has now been averted.
This is what saved us on that one


This why the Ozone hole has contracted. All Fact
FACT; THERE WOULD BE NO LIFE LEFT ON EARTH WELL BEFORE THE END OF THIS CENTURY HAD NOT 196 NATIONS LISTENED TO OUR SCIENTISTS AND COME TOGETHER TO LEGISLATE THE BANNING OF CFC's

FACT

Crisis averted, please have a nice day

If you selectively don't remember these events or choose not to?
Well then you have issues, serious issues. Only because you choose to have them.
I am not saying that would make you an "Earth is flat" type of person, but I am saying that if you choose to remain ignorant then it definitely makes you a "head in a bucket of sand" type person.

[Mick D]

The sceptics lose me because they've had too many bites.
I mean, if you're accused of something that you didn't do, then your first - and only response will be your alibi: "I was at the pub. I never went to the service station". No matter what happened, your alibi won't change, because it is the truth.

Compare this to the sceptics' excuses:
climate change isn't happening;
oh wait maybe it is happening;
volcanoes cause it;
ok, volcanoes don't, it must be forest fires;
oh, so that was bullshit too, how about sun spots;
Dammit, it's just a natural occurrence;
It will be cheaper to adapt;
CO2 is invisible, therefore it can't hurt you;
No, wait, how about we talk about what the Kardashians are up to;
The islands are sinking!

The excuses will never end. The truth will not change.

The truth is simple and consistent. The fact that the "sceptical opinion" has repeatedly morphed into different ideas, shows that it is an opinion looking for a justification.
And that it is bullshit.

"Sceptical opinion" is not the only thing that has morphed into  different ideas.
"Global Warming" morphed into "Climate Change" when that idea didn't look so certain, what will be the next different idea from the believers be called.
Its not compulsory to believe, and its not "bullshit" if someone has a different opinion on a subject which still needs a lot of research

With respect djr, nothing has morphed into anything mate. Those terms mean two entirely different things.
Quite simply "cause" and "effect".
Climate change is not causing the planet to warm up.
It is the other way around, a warming planet Gobal Warming that is being said to have now bought about a changing climate Climate Change. Cause and effect.

It has been very recent and widely publicized that it is now indeed Fact that the planet has warmed.
Which they say is the cause of new climate records. Put simply, cause and then effect.

[Mike52]

You caught me out Graeme I should have rechecked my statement.
The max sea level at Fort Dennison fell from 1914 to 1970's by 30mm , it then rose until now by 80mm.
Therefore the max sea level has risen by 48 to 50mm in that 100 year span.
That's .4 of a mm per year , 4mm per decade.
For the sea level to rise 4mtrs at this rate it will take 80 years x 100 .
[I use the max sea levels because they are the ones that will cause the predicted damage.]

Ps. These charts used to go back into the early 1800's but have been altered for some reason and I can no longer find that data.

Mick D.
I recently saw the Ozone Hole mentioned as it had completely disappeared and scientists did not understand why.

Yes I am skeptical on a heap of things , I have seen once in a thousand year floods here in Qld 4 times now.
I have here a News paper cutting saying that the experts predict 7 damaging cyclones  in Qld for 2014 when there was only one.
I have seen the hottest ever temps recorded in Birdsville / Australia / the world ,  when they actually happened before I was born.
The experts have just discovered that there should be another planet to balance this solar system , does this mean that the experts that taught me the solar system stopped at Pluto were not experts but a bunch of knobs.
It's the experts that inflame my skepticism , not the data.
Cheers.

[Graeme M]

No problems Mike. When people talk of sea level rise (SLR) they talk of changes over time to mean sea level (MSL). So there has been a change in MSL at Fort Denison over time. I agree that the effect of highest high water has been negligible and this is a matter I've been interested in - that while there is evidence for MSL rises over the past 100 years, it is often due to changes in low water rather than changes in high water. The thing with SLR is that for it to have any appreciable effect, it has to change high water levels in particular. Still, the fact is that MSL globally has indeed been rising over the past century according to both satellites and tide gauges. The rise averages at around 1.5 to 2.5mm/year globally. In some places it has actually fallen, in some it has risen on average more than that. At Sydney, it seems to have been at around .5-1mm/year in the past century which means average sea level is now around 50-100mm higher than in 1916.

If you have the stomach for it, this extremely long thread does cover a lot of issues relating to sea level rise around Australia. I comment throughout using the name Bolt For PM and also Graeme M. I am not sure any real conclusion was ever reached - in the end I lost interest. But the argument that the rate of SLR has not changed over the past century seemed to hold its ground in my opinion.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/12/12/sea-level-rise-acceleration/

[Paulos]

You caught me out Graeme I should have rechecked my statement.
The max sea level at Fort Dennison fell from 1914 to 1970's by 30mm , it then rose until now by 80mm.
Therefore the max sea level has risen by 48 to 50mm in that 100 year span.
That's .4 of a mm per year , 4mm per decade.
For the sea level to rise 4mtrs at this rate it will take 80 years x 100 .
[I use the max sea levels because they are the ones that will cause the predicted damage.]

Ps. These charts used to go back into the early 1800's but have been altered for some reason and I can no longer find that data.

Mick D.
I recently saw the Ozone Hole mentioned as it had completely disappeared and scientists did not understand why.

Yes I am skeptical on a heap of things , I have seen once in a thousand year floods here in Qld 4 times now.
I have here a News paper cutting saying that the experts predict 7 damaging cyclones  in Qld for 2014 when there was only one.
I have seen the hottest ever temps recorded in Birdsville / Australia / the world ,  when they actually happened before I was born.
The experts have just discovered that there should be another planet to balance this solar system , does this mean that the experts that taught me the solar system stopped at Pluto were not experts but a bunch of knobs.
It's the experts that inflame my skepticism , not the data.
Cheers.

You're forgetting that the "experts" once said the earth was flat. They also once said that man would never fly etc etc.....New discoveries come with scientific research and new technology. Scientists are constantly checking each others hypothesis, or trying to explain phenomena. Thats the way it works. Otherwise we'd all be sitting around our own version of Stonehenge.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/12/einstein-gravitational-waves-physics

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/feature-astronomers-say-neptune-sized-planet-lurks-unseen-solar-system

[crash n bern]

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

In the '70's the planet was going to freeze over and we were going to have a new ice age.

We were running out of fossil fuel and had the fuel crisis where people had to que up and be rationed petrol.

The 2 stroke was dead because of emissions. It died again for the same reason in 2000. (Oddly enough it always coincided with Yamaha releasing a new 4 stroke).

Smoking cigarettes was harmless.

Y2K was the end of mankind.

Humans are Lemmings. You experience it everyday when traffic goes to a crawl for 10k's because someone on the other side of the highway is pulled over with their bonnet up.

I believe that we make too much pollution, that we upset the balance of the planet. How much this affects weather I don't know. What I don't like is when the authorities put taxes and restrictions on us in the name of saving the planet when they merrily test nuclear weapon, build nuclear power stations, let big corporations poison the environment and generally cause more damage to the planet in one day than the average person could do in a lifetime. And yet we get penalised. I'm sure half the fear mongering is to justify their reasoning.

As far as scientists are concerned, their research is usually funded by someone who wants statistics to say a certain thing.

Call me a sceptic, I don't believe the doomsayers but I don't believe the conspiracy theorists either. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[Paulos]

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

In the '70's the planet was going to freeze over and we were going to have a new ice age.

We were running out of fossil fuel and had the fuel crisis where people had to que up and be rationed petrol.

The 2 stroke was dead because of emissions. It died again for the same reason in 2000. (Oddly enough it always coincided with Yamaha releasing a new 4 stroke).

Smoking cigarettes was harmless.

Y2K was the end of mankind.

Humans are Lemmings. You experience it everyday when traffic goes to a crawl for 10k's because someone on the other side of the highway is pulled over with their bonnet up.

I believe that we make too much pollution, that we upset the balance of the planet. How much this affects weather I don't know. What I don't like is when the authorities put taxes and restrictions on us in the name of saving the planet when they merrily test nuclear weapon, build nuclear power stations, let big corporations poison the environment and generally cause more damage to the planet in one day than the average person could do in a lifetime. And yet we get penalised. I'm sure half the fear mongering is to justify their reasoning.

As far as scientists are concerned, their research is usually funded by someone who wants statistics to say a certain thing.

Call me a sceptic, I don't believe the doomsayers but I don't believe the conspiracy theorists either. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I'm with you to an extent.  I think i prefer to believe 90% of the scientists who are saying we need to clean up our act though. And yes, politics and money have clouded the issue to the point of no return.

[Rossvickicampbell]

c&b - like you - I get pissed when a new tax is generated and the funds raised go nowhere towards fixing the problems - aka the carbon emissions tax.  It is a bit like the road tax should be - put the revenue raised back into the problem - not some of it and distribute the rest wherever you feel.

[Ted]

Answer this then. If the planet is heating up why is my dinner always cold when i get home late from the pub?