H/T Climate Change Dispatch
In which a scientific project gets dropped, or ignored, when it fails to produce the expected or hoped-for incriminating ‘climate change’ related data.
There is a striking disparity between sea-level datasets favored by climate catastrophists and actual observations, which mostly exists in their imaginations, writes Jack Weatherall for Quadrant Online.
The splendiferous east coast of Tasmania never ceases to please with all its myriad landscapes.
So it was a little discombobulating to recently pass a sign planted hard against the flow of traffic following the serpentine track that threads the coastal communities, proclaiming ‘Climate Change Is Killing the Planet’.
As it was only about eight degrees at the time, I was reasonably confident I would make my destination before something akin to the fate of the death star transpired and, thankfully, I was right.
It did, however, get me to thinking of how corrupt the science of the carbon cycle has truly become in the hyperbolic atmosphere of climate politics.
You would likely need a temperature increase in excess of 100 degrees in order to extinguish all life, including prokaryotes, from the biosphere — and even then creatures at depth, both aquatic and terrestrial, would probably find safe harbor.
Not to disappoint my sign-erecting fellow Taswegian, but his or her prophecy can’t possibly be achieved through carbon emissions alone.
Furthermore, the complete death of the planet, depending on how you might define that, may require extinguishing all its iron and siliceous substrate into stardust, a mighty feat even for that arch-villain, CO2.
Wishing to stay open-minded about what 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide had inflicted on the planet, I was intrigued when it was announced recently that what has been a great example of citizen science orchestrated under the banner of the Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC) was to be more or less abandoned, possibly due to being unhelpful to the narrative that accompanies climate change dogma.
Known as the TASMARC Project (Tasmanian Shoreline Monitoring & Archiving Project), this admirable public access project, with dedicated volunteers at the dune face of data collection, commenced tracking the gradient of 16 beaches around the Apple Isle in 2005, the object is to measure ‘the shoreline and the way it is responding to storm events and sea-level rise.
Utilizing standard surveying equipment (as depicted above) employed by engineers in civil construction projects and the like, over the course of the project the number of sites measured and profiled expanded to thirty.
Without putting too fine a point on it, there is no possible way the resultant data can be manipulated to demonstrate anything other than “nothing to see here” in regard to supporting the notion of CO2-mediated sea level rise.
Read more here.
– – –
Talkshop footnote
The post says TASMARC is an ‘admirable public access project’. On the project website (https://www.lgat.tas.gov.au/page.aspx?u=654) it says ‘For more information about the TASMARC Project from the ACE CRC click here’, which leads to this message:
Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access /~johunter/tasmarc.pdf on this server.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Unless you live somewhere that the land is rapidly subsiding (like New Orleans), sea-level rise is barely more than negligible. It is often dwarfed by common coastal processes, like erosion, sedimentation, and vertical land motion.
If you do live in a place where the land is rapidly subsiding, sea-level rise might be a problem for you, but the problem has nothing to do with climate change.
Honolulu is a good place to monitor sea-level, because Oahu is an old, stable island, with very little vertical land motion, and because Hawaii gets only small tides, and because its mid-Pacific location, near the pivot point of the east-west Pacific teeter-totter, means it’s little affected by ENSO “slosh.” Here’s 114 years of continuously measured sea-level data from Honolulu, juxtaposed with CO2 level:
Here’s NOAA’s graph (of sea-level alone) at the same site:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=1612340
It should be obvious to you that rising CO2 levels and manmade climate change are not causing rising sea-levels. Sea-level trends have not significantly changed in nine decades, even though CO2 levels rose more than 100 ppmv. (If that isn’t clear to someone reading this, this little primer might help: http://sealevel.info/acceleration_primer.html )
Have you ever heard of the Royal Hawaiian and Moana Hotels, in Honolulu?
Here’s the Moana Hotel (now called the Moana Surfrider Hotel), in 1925:
That’s a screencap from an old video, at 6:32 (or go back to 6:15 to hear the date reference).
Here’s a recent photo of the Moana Surfrider Hotel:
Does it look like it’s sinking beneath the ocean?
Here’s the Royal Hawaiian, brand new, in 1928:
Here’s a recent view:
Does it look like it’s sinking beneath the ocean?
That’s confirmation that sea-level rise at Honolulu (which sees a very typical sea-level trend) is close to negligible.
once you allow for subsidence and continental margin deflection you get basically zero sea level change across the planet. There’s also the large masses of warm water that slosh back and forth that have a marginally taller profile.
All in all it is more BS from the usual suspects.
I also just love the episodes of warmists getting trapped in the ice that isn’t supposed to be there any more in their expeditions to “prove” the Big Melt.
A very good read. A copy should be sent to Greta Thunberg for her to read on her way across the Atlantic. Maybe not. Sterile ground methinks.
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.
It would appear the climate alchemists are trying to dump the TASMARC Project as fast as possible for some strange reason. Are they afraid anyone reading about the project will have their heads explode or something like that? After all they have to keep the scam going at all costs especially now it seems we are starting on a world cool down.
Remember the story of Thermopylae where vastly outnumbered Greeks blocked a narrow pass? From the map it is now at least 6 km. wide due to a lower ocean level.
Roman ports are now inland (Ephesus etc. Ostia now 3 km. inland).
Harlech Castle, Wales
The castle’s other remarkable feature is the defended “Way from the sea,” a gated and fortified stairway plunging almost 200 ft down to the foot of the castle rock. Once, this gave access to supplies from the sea, but the tide level has since receded, leaving Harlech somewhat isolated upon its rock. During Madog ap Llywelyn’s uprising of 1294-95, this maritime lifeline proved the savior of the garrison, which was supplied and victualled by ships from Ireland. [bold added]
http://www.castlewales.com/harlech.html
– – –
Local conditions maybe?
Washington D.C. Conference Exposes ‘Climate Delusion’
BY TOM HARRIS AND DR. JAY LEHR AUGUST 3, 2019
‘The new president of The Heartland Institute, Frank Lasee, was not exaggerating when he described the 13th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC13) as “the most important climate change and energy event of the year.”
Speaking about the July 25 conference held at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., Lasee explained, “ICCC13 demonstrated that the Climate Delusion is not based on sound science or economics. It is wasting trillions of dollars and threatening our way of life, while propping up the drive for world socialism.”
This was a common theme throughout ICCC13. The Climate Delusion, relying on bad science and misguided economics, is damaging America and threatening the world.’
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/washington-d-c-conference-exposes-climate-delusion/
Graeme No.3 wrote, “Roman ports are now inland (Ephesus etc. Ostia now 3 km. inland).”
There’s a river there Ephesus / Selçuk, which presumably has deposited a lot silt there over the centuries. That might be the main reason that Ephesus is no longer on the coast.
It is likely that there was little or no net global sea-level rise over most of the last two millennia, but even at the current rate of approximately +1½ mm/year (six inches per century), global sea-level rise is still so slow that in many locations it is dwarfed by coastal processes, like sedimentation, erosion, and vertical land motion.
daveburton:
I note that the Watergate (sometimes called Traitor’s gate) in the Tower of London was built in 1285, so at that rate of rise should have 1.1 metres (43 inches) more water in it. Difficult to measure, what with the tidal range in the Thames, but I would wager that the rise is less than that.
Graeme No.3, as I said, “It is likely that there was little or no net global sea-level rise over most of the last two millennia…”
So, you should calculate the accumulated sea-level rise over about one century, rather than seven centuries.
There is evidence in some (though not all) measurement records of a wee bit of sea-level rise acceleration sometime between about 1850 and 1930. It is seen most clearly at PSMSL tide gauge no. 1, Brest, France, where the sea-level trend during the 19th century was +0.0 mm/year, but the sea-level trend since 1900 has been +1.5 mm/year. Here’s a pair of graphs which show the difference:
Note that that obviously is not evidence of an anthropogenic fingerprint. An acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise which occurred entirely before 1930 (i.e., before CO2 rose above about 208 ppmv), obviously is not evidence that CO2 level drives sea-level rise.
[mod] 208 ppmv should read 280 ppmv ?
By a coincidence I’ve received an e-mail on this subject from a friend, who as far as I know never reads this blog (or many others).
Sea levels at Fort Denison, Sydney
Figures from Daniel Fitzhenry – Hydrographical Surveyor
1914 1.1 metres
1924 0.98
1934 0.98
1944 0.97
1954 1.00
1964 1.09
1974 1.09
1984 1.02
1994 1.04
2004 1.08
2014 1.12
2019 1.05
He cautions that there have always been short term storm and low pressure rises in sea levels. The highest recorded sea level at Sydney occurred during the 1974 low pressure storm. The sea level rose to 30cm. above high spring tide level for one day. During recorded history there has been no indication whatsoever of a 100-200 cm. permanent rise in sea level.
There are 5 co-authors listed including 3 engineers (2 Civil, 1 Electrical & Mechanical) a Marine scientist and someone doing statistics. I am seeking the original source.
I would be amazed if there had not been a rise in sea level in the last 180 years, with the melting of glaciers being recorded, with the Aletsch regressing to its extent reached in 1240AD.
From: Post-glacial rebound
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
Rate of lithospheric uplift due to Postglacial Rebound, as modelled by Paulson, A., S. Zhong, and J. Wahr. Inference of mantle viscosity from GRACE and relative sea level data, Geophys. J. Int. (2007) 171, 497–508. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03556.x
Graeme3 quotes sea level figures at Fort Denison from one Daniel Fitzhenry ; readers should be aware that these figures are a fraud and do not represent averages for those years . They are in fact single monthly figures from those years (not even always the same month !) and in 10 of the 12 years listed are the highest monthly figure for that year . The raw data can be found here :
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml
When you do the sums as Fitzhenry should have , hey presto , you get a definite increase in mean sea level !! I have no idea how the Fitzhenry table was arrived at , but given Andrew Bolt was promoting it on Sky I could hazard an informed guess .