Pause in Sea Level Rise Tied to Massive Flooding in Australia

[westwall]

Westwall -

Can you grasp the concept that sea levels might be rising in some areas, and falling in other areas at the same time?

Also, do you understand the difference between a major long term (rising) trend, and a minor short-term (falling) trend within that wider trend? This was described in the OP material.

These really are not difficult concepts...why you find them so baffling I have no idea.

Why, yes I can. And have actually pointed that out many times...where were you? But the point is according to satellite imagery the rate of increase has slowed and as the study in the OP points out has actually reversed.

What is amusing is you clowns can NEVER admit you were wrong....ever. That's why you have lost the plot. The people KNOW that no one is perfect and those who claim they are....are lying...

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

If you can understand the concept of a minor short-term trend occuring within a major long-term trend, then you should have little problem grasping the material in the OP. Saying the "rate of increase has slowed" does not mean that the long term trend is not one of increases - it only means the RATE of increase is variable depending on things lke La Nina.

Suggesting that the long-term trend is still in play is not lying - it's common sense.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

If you can understand the concept of a minor short-term trend occuring within a major long-term trend, then you should have little problem grasping the material in the OP. Saying the "rate of increase has slowed" does not mean that the long term trend is not one of increases - it only means the RATE of increase is variable depending on things lke La Nina.

Suggesting that the long-term trend is still in play is not lying - it's common sense.

The propagandist who crows about EVERY SINGLE SHORT TERM OCCURENCE AS PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING lecturing me? Me, who has pointed out the long term cycles on a regular basis?

You haven't got a clue junior...not a clue. Finished your remedial Finnish geography class yet?

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

If you understand long-term trends, then you should be able to understand the material in the OP. I don't see the point of you claiming to understand the concepts, but still apprently not understanding the OP.


Please note the statement by moderators on the "16% of Americans..." thread. You nowhave your proof. I suggest you then come back and amend your statement here. ALL such future comments WILL be reported.

 

[mamooth]

Denialists, if you want to be taken seriously, you can't just handwave away every piece of data you don't like.

Oh wait. You don't want to be taken seriously, at least not by normal people. You want to demonstrate your cult loyalty to your fellow cult members, and regular declarations about how all the data is forged is how that's done.

Please, proceed. Just recognize that everyone outside the cult is laughing.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Do you people even look at the data?

3.2mm/year
CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

 

[westwall]

Denialists, if you want to be taken seriously, you can't just handwave away every piece of data you don't like.

Oh wait. You don't want to be taken seriously, at least not by normal people. You want to demonstrate your cult loyalty to your fellow cult members, and regular declarations about how all the data is forged is how that's done.

Please, proceed. Just recognize that everyone outside the cult is laughing.

Data? Where was the data in the "study"? This is just a friendly FYI but computer models are not, have never been, and more to the point, will never be data.

 

[IanC]

Westwall -

Can you grasp the concept that sea levels might be rising in some areas, and falling in other areas at the same time?

Also, do you understand the difference between a major long term (rising) trend, and a minor short-term (falling) trend within that wider trend? This was described in the OP material.

These really are not difficult concepts...why you find them so baffling I have no idea.

What I find baffling are the SLR altimetry maps that show long term trends both up and down, but side by side. I personally think the satellite record calculations are contaminated by other gravitational artifacts. I am not saying they aren't useful but the certainty that laymen presume they have is exaggerated.

 

[Abraham3]

This isn't about RISING sea levels.. This is about die-hard cultists deciding to "double-down" on their weak and inadequate theories..

First we find the missing heat in the oceans.. Now we find the missing water that stopped the ocean rise.. And it's in a great place isn't it? The dry interior of Australia.. That was a wise move Mother Nature..

Do you actually have some reason to doubt the research?

 

[Abraham3]

I know you guys love arguing from a position of ignorance, but here's the abstract to the paper under discussion. If you happen to be a member of AGU (thanks, Westie), you could get the rest of it at:

Australia's unique influence on global sea level in 2010-2011 - Fasullo - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Abstract
[1] In 2011, a significant drop in global sea level occurred that was unprecedented in the altimeter era and concurrent with an exceptionally strong La Niña. This analysis examines multiple datasets in exploring the physical basis for the drop's exceptional intensity and persistence. Australia's hydrologic surface mass anomaly is shown to have been a dominant contributor to the 2011 global total and associated precipitation anomalies were among the highest on record. The persistence of Australia's mass anomaly is attributed to the continent's unique surface hydrology, which includes expansive arheic and endorheic basins that impede runoff to ocean. Based on Australia's key role, attribution of sea level variability is addressed. The modulating influences of the Indian Ocean Dipole and Southern Annular Mode on La Niña teleconnections are found to be key drivers of anomalous precipitation in the continent's interior and the associated surface mass, and sea level responses.

 

[westwall]

I know you guys love arguing from a position of ignorance, but here's the abstract to the paper under discussion. If you happen to be a member of GRU, you could get the rest of it at:

Australia's unique influence on global sea level in 2010-2011 - Fasullo - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Abstract
[1] In 2011, a significant drop in global sea level occurred that was unprecedented in the altimeter era and concurrent with an exceptionally strong La Niña. This analysis examines multiple datasets in exploring the physical basis for the drop's exceptional intensity and persistence. Australia's hydrologic surface mass anomaly is shown to have been a dominant contributor to the 2011 global total and associated precipitation anomalies were among the highest on record. The persistence of Australia's mass anomaly is attributed to the continent's unique surface hydrology, which includes expansive arheic and endorheic basins that impede runoff to ocean. Based on Australia's key role, attribution of sea level variability is addressed. The modulating influences of the Indian Ocean Dipole and Southern Annular Mode on La Niña teleconnections are found to be key drivers of anomalous precipitation in the continent's interior and the associated surface mass, and sea level responses.

I see you outed yourself! For those who are ignorant...the GRU was the primary intelligence directorate of the Soviet armed forces....

The AGU is who you no doubt were trying to reference.... and the study is published in the GRL...

Why am I not surprised...yet another commie!

 

[flacaltenn]

This isn't about RISING sea levels.. This is about die-hard cultists deciding to "double-down" on their weak and inadequate theories..

First we find the missing heat in the oceans.. Now we find the missing water that stopped the ocean rise.. And it's in a great place isn't it? The dry interior of Australia.. That was a wise move Mother Nature..

Do you actually have some reason to doubt the research?

Yeah I do.. I abhor the idea of taking complex systems and reducing them to ONE number. Like the Global Mean Annual Surface Temp or the Global Annual Rate of SLR..

But then I just chuckle when changes in those worthless simplified variables are attempted to get explained by ISOLATED LOCAL EVENTS..

For instance. What I KNOW IS --- SLR rates have exceeded 9 or 10 mm/yr in the areas around Australia. This discrepancy with the brainless "global average" has LITTLE TO DO with CO2 or global warming but is a product of El Nina/Nino and PDO cycles.

We lose shitloads of scientific understanding by blurting out theories that water loss came from ACTUALLY REDISTRIBUTION of water in a single region.

IF --- physical water was redistributed into the interior of Australia -- don't show me the effect on the GLOBAL AVERAGE --- show me the effect on the LOCAL sea level conditions before and after the event. That water didn't come from the Mediterranean. There SHOULD be LOCAL reductions in the SW Pacific to CONFIRM this brainfart.

IN FACT -- if water was LOCALLY REDISTRIBUTED -- the effect would be TEN-FOLD more dramatic on LOCAL Sea Level measurements. That's just more impressive than taking it out of a "global" average. If you're missing 6mm of water GLOBALLY --- Well Shit man --- It ought to resolve to 60 or 100mm locally wouldn't it?? THAT -- would impress me..

You on the other hand -- don't seem to analyze the assertions that are made in PR releases like this one. Or you don't understand the frailities of using the simplified "one number to watch" meaningless "global" averages to see what REALLY is going on with climate changes..

The AGW/CChange advertising group needs to get their story. While distinguished Senate Panels of warmers are telling the public and policy makers that "it is important NOT to focus on GLOBAL atmospheric or temperature trends" and that we should be more "concerned about REGIONAL signals and impacts" ((( thus the name change from AGW to CC))) --- the science clowns in the backroom don't seem to have gotten the marching orders....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Interesting stuff.

I couple of weeks back I visited a village in Senegal that has been largesly washed away by rising sea levels. It was an eerie sight.

The buildings are still there, but the trees, paths and gardens around them are now underwater at high tide, and the water table is now salinated.

What will it cost to protect a city the size of Brisbane or NYC?

Did you miss Westwall dissection of your stupid "idea" about "Rising sea levels"?

 

[mamooth]

IF --- physical water was redistributed into the interior of Australia --

Given that the very large Lake Eyre took the place of a dry salt pan, that point is quite settled.

don't show me the effect on the GLOBAL AVERAGE --- show me the effect on the LOCAL sea level conditions before and after the event.

Why? After all, it's dumb to think all the water was lifted in an instant only from the Australian coast, and then no water replaced it. That's a crazy theory on your part, so of course no one is trying to prove it.

Here's a thought. Show how a vast lake appearing in mid-Australia would _not_ affect global sea level. Do you think the water magically appeared from nowhere?

 

[Abraham3]

I'd like to see at least a rough calculation of the volume of water that fell on the Australian interior above and beyond normal rainfall levels for the area. That would tell the story, wouldn't it. I should think the study must have done just that. It's a shame the paywalls are so high around decent science.

 

[Abraham3]

That water didn't come from the Mediterranean.

Why not?

There SHOULD be LOCAL reductions in the SW Pacific to CONFIRM this.

Has it occurred to you that a global average contains the sea level readings of the SW Pacific?

 

[flacaltenn]

That water didn't come from the Mediterranean.

Why not?

There SHOULD be LOCAL reductions in the SW Pacific to CONFIRM this.

Has it occurred to you that a global average contains the sea level readings of the SW Pacific?

The water that flooded the interior came from within a thousand mile radius or so.. That's how weather works. Why the hell are we reconciling it against a "global" average? When it rains in Tennessee -- it's because GULF moisture is lifted a couple hundred miles north.

I think you missed the point where SLR rates are (were?) 3 times higher in the SW Pacific than the "global average".. Don't you think if the sea level DID go down --- it would be FAR MORE NOTICEABLY LOCALLY? Without going out and surveying the entire funcking WORLD?

How can sea level be RISING 3 times faster somewhere --- but you and the Mammoth cat can't abide that accounting for this theory OUGHT to be on a local level.. Sucking that much from the region would CERTAINLY suppress that massive difference in observed rate.

The source WAS local (relatively) -- there should be a commitantly GREATER reduction on that scale than the tinier "average" reduction all over the globe.

It's like measuring the remainder of a 50 pound bag every time you need 2 cups of rice.

 

[mamooth]

Don't you think if the sea level DID go down --- it would be FAR MORE NOTICEABLY LOCALLY?

Of course not, because water flows down a gravitational gradient.

You're essentially saying that if I take a cup of water out of the ocean, local sea level in that spot where I scooped the water from should remain lower, because water can't flow in to replace it. That's a really dumb theory, which is why there's no evidence of such an impossible thing happening.

 

[westwall]

Don't you think if the sea level DID go down --- it would be FAR MORE NOTICEABLY LOCALLY?

Of course not, because water flows down a gravitational gradient.

You're essentially saying that if I take a cup of water out of the ocean, local sea level in that spot where I scooped the water from should remain lower, because water can't flow in to replace it. That's a really dumb theory, which is why there's no evidence of such an impossible thing happening.

I thought you were in the Navy admiral....in your own words describe the cause of the Pacific ocean being 20cm higher than the Atlantic. Also is the Indian ocean higher or the Pacific? How does the med factor in?

Remember, use your own words admiral....

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't you think if the sea level DID go down --- it would be FAR MORE NOTICEABLY LOCALLY?

Of course not, because water flows down a gravitational gradient.

You're essentially saying that if I take a cup of water out of the ocean, local sea level in that spot where I scooped the water from should remain lower, because water can't flow in to replace it. That's a really dumb theory, which is why there's no evidence of such an impossible thing happening.

This could b fun. 1st tell me how slr caan b rising 3 times faster in the sw pacific
than it is in the Med if its all about gravity.