Tony Abbott's Climate Speech.
Some love it...  other's hate him
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1508223430/0#13

Grendel wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 6:46pm:


Except that Abbott's claims don't stand up to any scrutiny.
Tony Abbott revealed his aversion to science when his government became the first in over 80 years not to have a science minister.
To have such a scientific illiterate giving such a flawed speech on climate science was actually quite bizarre.

why start another thread in environment? 

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 8:31pm:



have you checked out the tide gauge data for Fort Denison yet? Can you show us this acceleration is Sea level Rise?

Yeah. but Dna is the one ducking the science.

lee wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 10:26pm:


Dna is the one ducking the science

Or taking the dog for a walk and having an early night just seen the comment at 11:30 to emulate Grendel.

The fort Denison charts show a clear average increase from 1950.

1980’s Av around 6930 mm
1910’s av around 6970 mm (early peak period)
1920 – 1950 – av around 6940 mm
1950 - 1970 av around 6990 mm
1970 to 1990 av around 7020 mm

Early period peak:
1910 – 7020mm (one only before 1950)
Peak from 1970 – 7040mm x 3

We seem to have gone from averages of 6930 mm to 7020 mm.

You can see that rise against Nana's boots in Tony's Manly pictures if you look closely.

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 10:05am:



You did notice they were using the satellite data? And that he didn't explicitly say they were good?

Remember NASA comments on Jason?
The new Jason 3 updated from Jason2 which had an accuracy of 4-5cm

"The primary instrument on Jason-3 is a radar altimeter. The altimeter will measure sea-level variations over the global ocean with very high accuracy (as 1.3 inches or 3.3 centimeters,"

https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/jason3/

So as Pauline famously said "Please Explain". Please explain how satellites with a "very high accuracy" of 3.3CM (33MM) can detect Sea Level Rise of 3.4MM. That is an order of magnitude above the postulated rise. It is down in the noise, somewhere.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 2:10pm:


So the Collaroy storm and wash out of the beach was not a large one? Wasn't it supposed to the worst in more than 40 years? It should have been up here in lights. But MSL for June 2016 was 1.21 metres,

"Residents of Sydney's northern beaches are cleaning up after the area was hit by the worst storms in more than 40 years on the weekend leaving homes and businesses severely damaged."

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/06/06/northern-beaches-homes-coastline-w...

Dnarever wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 2:10pm:


So you have shown.

lee wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 2:56pm:



Quote:


Here is when you said the highest was ? May not April, In fact it was the day following the first storm.

Quote:


Between May 24 and June 16, 1974, the Sydney coastline was lashed by three storms that caused enormous damage to the coastline and altered the built landscape forever.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/northern-beaches/one-of-the-storms-th...

Dnarever wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 3:21pm:



You do realise that is a quote direct from BoM? It is also the HIGH tide figure, NOT the Mean figure. Capiche?

Once again Sea Level is measured at the MEAN.

lee wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 4:05pm:


Yes I know what it is. Only commented on it because you used the figure (high - 1974) even though it has little relevance. Using the word Maximum rather gives it away as not being the mean - no ?


My following use of the same term was only in order to compare apples with apples when you had compared the 1974 event in terms of Highest measure and then wanted to compare it with the 2016 event as a monthly mean value.

lee wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 4:12pm:


I did the exact opposite of what you had already done putting all the numbers on the table.

When you brought up 74 you used the figure as 2.4 peak and then when you brought up 2016 you used the number 1.21 mean

My contribution gave us

1974: 2.4 peak       1.055 Mean.

2006:  2.199 peak   1.21 mean

I put all the numbers on the table is all.

2.4metres, which was not a storm affected tide that I can see.

Well it did occur in the immediate period of a 100 year storm.

lee wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 5:08pm:


Yep. It knew a storm was coming and went out in sympathy

Your still persisting with your error I see. The storm started the day before the record sea level.

Not going one step backwards as my explanation clearly shows.

lee wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 7:00pm:


OK Below is what you posted as the Maximum record:

Quote:


Now below is the dates of the storms:

Quote:


Now the conclusion we have is:

a) Huge storm commencing on 24/5

AND

b) Record high sea level 25/5.

not a coincidence.

lee wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 7:58pm:


Neither event seems to have influenced the mean result by much if at all and I would assume that there were other storms going back in history having a balancing effect overall.

We may be talking about 10 readings out or 125 years X 365 days. (45,625) You probably noticed that the 2016 storms seemed to have no real perceivable impact. This is likely because it depends on a number of other factors I would think.

To have a measurable impact I suspect you need a high high-tide scheduled due to the correct moon phase and distances coupled with the storm and sea swell amount of water in the system and the tide times etc.

I remember the 74 tide - the water was up to my grandmothers door at high tide. I caught a fish in the front yard from the porch. 

So basically there is too much uncertainty to determine sea level or accelerating sea level change.