No Sea Level Rise says Isle of the Dead

[elektra]

I have not noticed anybody mention the Isle of the Dead and the physical evidence that indicates the level of the Oceans are more or less constant.

In 1841 Captain Sir James Clark Ross, marked the mean level of the sea. It is funny to note, that back in 1841 that people had a better understanding of the Earth and Oceans, that they observed changes in Sea Level dramatic enough, that they determined a need to record a benchmark for future studies.

Isle of the Dead

The ‘Isle of the Dead’ may yet prove to be another nail in the coffin of global warming and its gruesome companion, Disastrous Sea Level Rises.

The `Isle of the Dead’ is over two acres in size and is situated within the harbor of Port Arthur opening directly to the Southern Ocean. The isle itself is actually a graveyard (thus its eerie name), containing the graves of some 2,000 British convicts and free persons from the 19th century who lived and died at the nearby convict colony of Port Arthur between 1832 and 1870.

In 1841. renowned British Antarctic explorer, Captain Sir James Clark Ross, sailed into Tassy after a 6-month voyage of discovery and exploration to the Antarctic.

Ross and Governor Franklin made a particular point of visiting Port Arthur, to meet Thomas Lempriere, a senior official of the convict colony there, but who was also a methodical observer and recorder of meteorological, tidal, and astronomical data. It is important to note what Captain Ross wrote about it.

“My principal object in visiting Port Arthur was to afford a comparison of our standard barometer with that which had been employed for several years by Mr. Lempriere, the Deputy Assistant Commissary General, in accordance with my instructions, and also to establish a permanent mark at the zero point, or general mean level of the sea as determined by the tidal observations which Mr. Lempriere had conducted with perseverance and exactness for some time: by which means any secular variation in the relative level of the land and sea, which is known to occur on some coasts, might at any future period be detected, and its amount determined.

The point chosen for this purpose was the perpendicular cliff of the small islet off Point Puer, which, being near to the tide register, rendered the operation more simple and exact. The Governor, whom I had accompanied on an official visit to the settlement, gave directions to afford Mr. Lempriere every assistance of labourers he required, to have the mark cut deeply in the rock in the exact spot which his tidal observations indicated as the mean level of the ocean.

That mark is still there today, as can be seen in the photo.The photo was taken at midway between high and low tides.

There is intensive research presently underway by several institutions including the now corrupt CSIRO assisted by the head of the Inter-Agency Committee on Marine Science & Technology, Dr David Pugh, who is based at the University of Southampton, UK. But in spite of plenty of time we have yet to see their detailed explanation of just why this mark confounds all the predictions about sea level rise.

Dr. Pugh airily waves his hands and says in effect that poor old confused Lempriere, in spite of the detailed instructions about getting a Mean Sea Level (half way between high and low tide), he just put in the high water mark. This, of course, sounds logical to anybody steeped in the Green religion.

But not to anyone else and not to real scientists who look at evidence unflinchingly.

Tasmanian Sea Levels - Lessons from the Isle of the Dead

Measuring sea-level rise at Port Arthur

150 year old mark shows no ocean rise

I added some links to the OP.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sea level rises aren't what worry me the most.

If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.

So, the reality is, if the Antarctic and Arctic melt a little, the effects might not be noticed at first. Later on when more and more land based ice is melting, then that is when problems will occur.

The problem is the PH levels of the oceans. I read about sea lions dying off because they can't cope with the level of change of the PH in the oceans. Other sea creatures will be the same, and this is the biggest and most worrying part of polluting the atmosphere we're going to see first.

 

[elektra]

That would make an interesting thread, you should start one on Sea Lions, I would gladly contribute.

 

[mamooth]

Elektra, now can you tell us the one about how scientists cut down a tree because they hated how it disproved sea level rise? I think that's my all-time favorite denier fairy tale.

Measuring sea-level rise at Port Arthur
---
A paper published in 1889 by Captain Shortt recorded the wording of the plaque, including the time the mark was struck and the height of the sea given by Lempriere's tide gauge. By taking a measurement of the height of the sea, and estimating what the tides were when the mark was made, Shortt determined that the mark was made near high water.
---

There can be only one explanation. The conspiracy goes back to 1889.

The Port Arthur area as a whole, including that island, is having gradually worsening tidal flooding problems. It didn't have those problems before. Hmm, I wonder what could be causing such a thing?

 

[skookerasbil]

Only nutters worry about a few millimeter rise in the sea level anyway. This is just another of the long list of k00k hoaxes perpetuated by these OCD mental cases.. These people need some real responsibilities in their lives.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sea level rises aren't what worry me the most.

If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.

So, the reality is, if the Antarctic and Arctic melt a little, the effects might not be noticed at first. Later on when more and more land based ice is melting, then that is when problems will occur.

The problem is the PH levels of the oceans. I read about sea lions dying off because they can't cope with the level of change of the PH in the oceans. Other sea creatures will be the same, and this is the biggest and most worrying part of polluting the atmosphere we're going to see first.

For Antartica to melt, we'd have to have a different orbit

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have not noticed anybody mention the Isle of the Dead and the physical evidence that indicates the level of the Oceans are more or less constant.

In 1841 Captain Sir James Clark Ross, marked the mean level of the sea. It is funny to note, that back in 1841 that people had a better understanding of the Earth and Oceans, that they observed changes in Sea Level dramatic enough, that they determined a need to record a benchmark for future studies.

Isle of the Dead

The ‘Isle of the Dead’ may yet prove to be another nail in the coffin of global warming and its gruesome companion, Disastrous Sea Level Rises.

The `Isle of the Dead’ is over two acres in size and is situated within the harbor of Port Arthur opening directly to the Southern Ocean. The isle itself is actually a graveyard (thus its eerie name), containing the graves of some 2,000 British convicts and free persons from the 19th century who lived and died at the nearby convict colony of Port Arthur between 1832 and 1870.

In 1841. renowned British Antarctic explorer, Captain Sir James Clark Ross, sailed into Tassy after a 6-month voyage of discovery and exploration to the Antarctic.

Ross and Governor Franklin made a particular point of visiting Port Arthur, to meet Thomas Lempriere, a senior official of the convict colony there, but who was also a methodical observer and recorder of meteorological, tidal, and astronomical data. It is important to note what Captain Ross wrote about it.

“My principal object in visiting Port Arthur was to afford a comparison of our standard barometer with that which had been employed for several years by Mr. Lempriere, the Deputy Assistant Commissary General, in accordance with my instructions, and also to establish a permanent mark at the zero point, or general mean level of the sea as determined by the tidal observations which Mr. Lempriere had conducted with perseverance and exactness for some time: by which means any secular variation in the relative level of the land and sea, which is known to occur on some coasts, might at any future period be detected, and its amount determined.

The point chosen for this purpose was the perpendicular cliff of the small islet off Point Puer, which, being near to the tide register, rendered the operation more simple and exact. The Governor, whom I had accompanied on an official visit to the settlement, gave directions to afford Mr. Lempriere every assistance of labourers he required, to have the mark cut deeply in the rock in the exact spot which his tidal observations indicated as the mean level of the ocean.

That mark is still there today, as can be seen in the photo.The photo was taken at midway between high and low tides.

There is intensive research presently underway by several institutions including the now corrupt CSIRO assisted by the head of the Inter-Agency Committee on Marine Science & Technology, Dr David Pugh, who is based at the University of Southampton, UK. But in spite of plenty of time we have yet to see their detailed explanation of just why this mark confounds all the predictions about sea level rise.

Dr. Pugh airily waves his hands and says in effect that poor old confused Lempriere, in spite of the detailed instructions about getting a Mean Sea Level (half way between high and low tide), he just put in the high water mark. This, of course, sounds logical to anybody steeped in the Green religion.

But not to anyone else and not to real scientists who look at evidence unflinchingly.

View attachment 64841

Well the only conclusion is that this Island should be renamed the Isle of the DENIER!!!!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sea level rises aren't what worry me the most.

If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.

So, the reality is, if the Antarctic and Arctic melt a little, the effects might not be noticed at first. Later on when more and more land based ice is melting, then that is when problems will occur.

The problem is the PH levels of the oceans. I read about sea lions dying off because they can't cope with the level of change of the PH in the oceans. Other sea creatures will be the same, and this is the biggest and most worrying part of polluting the atmosphere we're going to see first.

For Antartica to melt, we'd have to have a different orbit

Not necessarily.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sea level rises aren't what worry me the most.

If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.

So, the reality is, if the Antarctic and Arctic melt a little, the effects might not be noticed at first. Later on when more and more land based ice is melting, then that is when problems will occur.

The problem is the PH levels of the oceans. I read about sea lions dying off because they can't cope with the level of change of the PH in the oceans. Other sea creatures will be the same, and this is the biggest and most worrying part of polluting the atmosphere we're going to see first.

For Antartica to melt, we'd have to have a different orbit

Not necessarily.

Do you know anything about Earth's current orbit?

Well OK maybe the axis can tilt too

 

[elektra]

Elektra, now can you tell us the one about how scientists cut down a tree because they hated how it disproved sea level rise? I think that's my all-time favorite denier fairy tale.

Measuring sea-level rise at Port Arthur
---
A paper published in 1889 by Captain Shortt recorded the wording of the plaque, including the time the mark was struck and the height of the sea given by Lempriere's tide gauge. By taking a measurement of the height of the sea, and estimating what the tides were when the mark was made, Shortt determined that the mark was made near high water.
---

There can be only one explanation. The conspiracy goes back to 1889.

The Port Arthur area as a whole, including that island, is having gradually worsening tidal flooding problems. It didn't have those problems before. Hmm, I wonder what could be causing such a thing?

We all know you are busy, posting fairy tales, it is hard to tell which on is your favorite.

And, high tide flooding is Weather, not Climate. Funny how those "scientific" Global Warming worshipers confuse the weather with climate (at their convenience).

 

[elektra]

Seems I forgot to link the article I referenced.

150 year old mark shows no ocean rise

 

[Old Rocks]

Sea Level Rise and Australia | Climate Citizen
RECENT SEA LEVEL AROUND AUSTRALIA
Recent Sea Level trend based upon National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology Seaframe data gauges installed 1990-1993 and measured to June 2011; and net sea level trend after vertical movements in the observing platform relative to a local land benchmark and the inverted barometric pressure effect are taken into account.

• Cocos Islands - 8.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.4mm/year
  
• Groote Eylandt (NT) - 9.0mm/year - Net sea level trend: 8.9mm/year
  
• Darwin (NT) - 8.6mm/year - Net sea level trend: 8.3mm/year
  
• Broome (WA) - 9.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 8.4mm/year
  
• Hillarys (near Perth WA) - 9.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 9.0mm/year
  
• Esperance (WA)- 6.0mm/year - Net sea level trend: 5.5mm/year
  
• Thevenard (SA) - 4.5mm/year - Net sea level trend: 4.3mm/year
  
• Port Stanvac (near Adelaide SA) - 4.7mm/year - Net sea level trend: 4.3mm/year
  
• Portland (Vic) - 3.2mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.1mm/year
  
• Lorne (Vic) - 2.7mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.8mm/year
  
• Stony Point (Vic) - 2.6mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.6mm/year
  
• Burnie (Tas) - 3.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.9mm/year
  
• Spring Bay (Tas) - 3.5mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.7mm/year
  
• Port Kembla (NSW) - 3.2mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.6mm/year
  
• Rosslyn Bay (Qld) - 3.8mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.5mm/year
  
• Cape Ferguson (Qld) - 4.8mm/year - Net sea level trend: 4.7mm/year

Source: National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology June 2011 report (PDF)








PROJECTIONS OF SEA LEVEL RISE

Reality!

 

[elektra]

Sea Level Rise and Australia | Climate Citizen
RECENT SEA LEVEL AROUND AUSTRALIA
Recent Sea Level trend based upon National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology Seaframe data gauges installed 1990-1993 and measured to June 2011; and net sea level trend after vertical movements in the observing platform relative to a local land benchmark and the inverted barometric pressure effect are taken into account.

• Cocos Islands - 8.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.4mm/year
  
• Groote Eylandt (NT) - 9.0mm/year - Net sea level trend: 8.9mm/year
  
• Darwin (NT) - 8.6mm/year - Net sea level trend: 8.3mm/year
  
• Broome (WA) - 9.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 8.4mm/year
  
• Hillarys (near Perth WA) - 9.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 9.0mm/year
  
• Esperance (WA)- 6.0mm/year - Net sea level trend: 5.5mm/year
  
• Thevenard (SA) - 4.5mm/year - Net sea level trend: 4.3mm/year
  
• Port Stanvac (near Adelaide SA) - 4.7mm/year - Net sea level trend: 4.3mm/year
  
• Portland (Vic) - 3.2mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.1mm/year
  
• Lorne (Vic) - 2.7mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.8mm/year
  
• Stony Point (Vic) - 2.6mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.6mm/year
  
• Burnie (Tas) - 3.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.9mm/year
  
• Spring Bay (Tas) - 3.5mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.7mm/year
  
• Port Kembla (NSW) - 3.2mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.6mm/year
  
• Rosslyn Bay (Qld) - 3.8mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.5mm/year
  
• Cape Ferguson (Qld) - 4.8mm/year - Net sea level trend: 4.7mm/year

Source: National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology June 2011 report (PDF)








PROJECTIONS OF SEA LEVEL RISE

Reality!

From a blog Old Crock?

And what about that last post you ran from, where you gave the incorrect symbol or formula for calculating power?

1 amp is used to create 12 watts, which you said was wrong, according to the formula though, P=IE, I was correct, that looks to be at the level of 2nd grade math, which apparently Old Crock is incapable of.

But on to your post, a blog is a really weak, a step below wikepedia

 

[elektra]

Sea Level Rise and Australia | Climate Citizen
RECENT SEA LEVEL AROUND AUSTRALIA
Recent Sea Level trend based upon National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology Seaframe data gauges installed 1990-1993 and measured to June 2011; and net sea level trend after vertical movements in the observing platform relative to a local land benchmark and the inverted barometric pressure effect are taken into account.

• Cocos Islands - 8.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.4mm/year
  
• Groote Eylandt (NT) - 9.0mm/year - Net sea level trend: 8.9mm/year
  
• Darwin (NT) - 8.6mm/year - Net sea level trend: 8.3mm/year
  
• Broome (WA) - 9.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 8.4mm/year
  
• Hillarys (near Perth WA) - 9.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 9.0mm/year
  
• Esperance (WA)- 6.0mm/year - Net sea level trend: 5.5mm/year
  
• Thevenard (SA) - 4.5mm/year - Net sea level trend: 4.3mm/year
  
• Port Stanvac (near Adelaide SA) - 4.7mm/year - Net sea level trend: 4.3mm/year
  
• Portland (Vic) - 3.2mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.1mm/year
  
• Lorne (Vic) - 2.7mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.8mm/year
  
• Stony Point (Vic) - 2.6mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.6mm/year
  
• Burnie (Tas) - 3.1mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.9mm/year
  
• Spring Bay (Tas) - 3.5mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.7mm/year
  
• Port Kembla (NSW) - 3.2mm/year - Net sea level trend: 2.6mm/year
  
• Rosslyn Bay (Qld) - 3.8mm/year - Net sea level trend: 3.5mm/year
  
• Cape Ferguson (Qld) - 4.8mm/year - Net sea level trend: 4.7mm/year

Source: National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology June 2011 report (PDF)








PROJECTIONS OF SEA LEVEL RISE

Reality!

From your blog Old Crock, thanks again for helping.

Please note that we changed the method of calculating relative sea level trends in 2015. The trends displayed here are not directly comparable with any calculated before that date. For a description of how the trends are now calculated, please see the methods page.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sea level rises aren't what worry me the most.

If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.

So, the reality is, if the Antarctic and Arctic melt a little, the effects might not be noticed at first. Later on when more and more land based ice is melting, then that is when problems will occur.

The problem is the PH levels of the oceans. I read about sea lions dying off because they can't cope with the level of change of the PH in the oceans. Other sea creatures will be the same, and this is the biggest and most worrying part of polluting the atmosphere we're going to see first.

For Antartica to melt, we'd have to have a different orbit

Not necessarily.

Do you know anything about Earth's current orbit?

Well OK maybe the axis can tilt too

Yes, I know enough about the Earth's current orbit to know that the Antarctic could be ice free. It's been ice free before.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2011.pdf

This report was prepared by: National Tidal Centre Australian Bureau of Meteorology GPO Box 421 Kent Town SA 5071 Australia Tel: (+618) 8366 2730 Fax: (+618) 8366 2651 Email: [email protected] Website: Oceanography Quality Certification: I authorise the issue of this Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project Annual Sea Level Data Summary Report for July 2010 - June 2011 in accordance with the quality assurance procedures of the National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology
.............................................................................................................................................................
It is important to emphasise that as the ABSLMP sea level records increase in length, the sea level trend estimates will continue to stabilise and become more indicative of longerterm changes. Caution must be exercised in interpreting the ‘short-term’ relative sea level trends (Table 2) as they are based on short records in climate terms and are still undergoing large year-to-year changes. Location Installation Date Sea Level Trend (mm/yr) Change in trend from June 2010 (mm/yr)
Cocos Islands Sep 1992 8.1 -0.6
Groote Eylandt Sep 1993 9.0 1.9
Darwin May 1990 8.6 1.4
Broome Nov 1991 9.1 1.3
Hillarys Nov 1991 9.1 1.5
Esperance Mar 1992 6.0 0.7
Thevenard Mar 1992 4.5 0.3
Port Stanvac* Jun 1992 4.7 -0.3
Portland Jul 1991 3.2 0.2
Lorne Jan 1993 2.7 1.4
Stony Point Jan 1993 2.6 1.3
Burnie Sep 1992 3.1 0.2
Spring Bay May 1991 3.5 0.1
Port Kembla Jul 1991 3.2 0.2
Rosslyn Bay Jun 1992 3.8 1.5
Cape Ferguson Sep 1991 4.8 1.4
Table 2. Recent short-term relative sea level trends based upon SEAFRAME data to June 2011.

A very good and complete paper on the monitoring of the sea level in Australia. Real scientists, not denier frauds.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.

No, it will not, and that basic bit of ignorance is enough to dismiss just about everything else you have to say on the subject.

Floating ice will not change the level of water in which it floats, one way or the other, as the ice melts. Ice displaces its weight in liquid water, not its volume.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Only nutters worry about a few millimeter rise in the sea level anyway. This is just another of the long list of k00k hoaxes perpetuated by these OCD mental cases.. These people need some real responsibilities in their lives.

No, these people need to be kept away from any positions of power or responsibility; as they have proven themselves unfit for it.

 

[IanC]

I think the actual tide gauge average is closer to 2mm/yr because there are more areas that are rising due to GIA than sinking due to land subsidence. but the idea is clear. tide gauges on the actual coastlines where we interact with the oceans is showing much less SLR than mid ocean where it cannot be checked and doesnt matter anyways. isnt it odd that there was a large step change exactly at the same time that satellite altimetry came online?

 

[elektra]

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2011.pdf

This report was prepared by: National Tidal Centre Australian Bureau of Meteorology GPO Box 421 Kent Town SA 5071 Australia Tel: (+618) 8366 2730 Fax: (+618) 8366 2651 Email: [email protected] Website: Oceanography Quality Certification: I authorise the issue of this Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project Annual Sea Level Data Summary Report for July 2010 - June 2011 in accordance with the quality assurance procedures of the National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology
.............................................................................................................................................................
It is important to emphasise that as the ABSLMP sea level records increase in length, the sea level trend estimates will continue to stabilise and become more indicative of longerterm changes. Caution must be exercised in interpreting the ‘short-term’ relative sea level trends (Table 2) as they are based on short records in climate terms and are still undergoing large year-to-year changes. Location Installation Date Sea Level Trend (mm/yr) Change in trend from June 2010 (mm/yr)
Cocos Islands Sep 1992 8.1 -0.6
Groote Eylandt Sep 1993 9.0 1.9
Darwin May 1990 8.6 1.4
Broome Nov 1991 9.1 1.3
Hillarys Nov 1991 9.1 1.5
Esperance Mar 1992 6.0 0.7
Thevenard Mar 1992 4.5 0.3
Port Stanvac* Jun 1992 4.7 -0.3
Portland Jul 1991 3.2 0.2
Lorne Jan 1993 2.7 1.4
Stony Point Jan 1993 2.6 1.3
Burnie Sep 1992 3.1 0.2
Spring Bay May 1991 3.5 0.1
Port Kembla Jul 1991 3.2 0.2
Rosslyn Bay Jun 1992 3.8 1.5
Cape Ferguson Sep 1991 4.8 1.4
Table 2. Recent short-term relative sea level trends based upon SEAFRAME data to June 2011.

A very good and complete paper on the monitoring of the sea level in Australia. Real scientists, not denier frauds.

Old Crock, you must be kidding, more "studies" by the IPCC and its cherry picking minions.

http://geoinfo.amu.edu.pl/qg/current/QG341_027-036.pdf

Their analysis wrongly focuses on the latest positive oscillation of a multi-decadal natural movement disregarding the presence of the natural multi-decadal oscillations that influence the rate or rise of sea levels. Without cherry-picking procedures only selecting the time window or the tide gauge that supports positively accelerating sea level claims, there is not too much of positive acceleration measured by the Sydney tide gauge and the other tide gauges of the world of similar quality and length. The 170 world tide gauges with more than 60 years of data in the PSMSL data base presently show relative rate of rise of about +0.403 mm yr–1, constant, very likely the result of more subsidence than isostasy at the tide gauge locations, for an average absolute rate of rise very close to zero (Parker 2014c)

Climate scientists are very clever to correct past records or cherry picking the information in the direction of producing warming temperatures and rising seas. However, their ability to predict the future is very poor, as clearly demonstrated by the comparison of climate model predictions and measurements of temperatures and sea levels during this century