Al Gore eat your heart out: Another example of a sea-level FALL
Moreton Bay borders Brisbane. A Brisbane reader emailed me as follows:
I thought you might be interested in this photo of our old family home site at Cleveland Point, Moreton Bay. That old jetty is one I helped build in 1946. And in the years from '46 to '53 the fine weather king tides [~ normal BP] just covered the decking on that jetty [decking now missing but 30 mm higher than remaining bearers]. This photo was taken at the top of the highest king tide of this summer [15/12/16] and as you can see this tide is at least a foot lower than the top of the jetty. I have been doing this check regularly for the last 6 years and it is always the same. Around a foot lower.
Not only is there no acceleration in SLR in this isoststically stable part of the world but there is NO SLR at all. There have been no hydrodynamic changes anywhere near this very exposed part of the bay to possibly influence tides.
The new owners have wisely built a mezzanine wall and filled the site because apart from being at king tide height the lawn would be under water by up to a foot with cyclonic storm surges which happened quite often in the past though rarely nowadays.
It is interesting when you talk to council engineers and others in authority who should know -- like university professors advising on coastal city planning etc. -- just how little they really know about the true sea level situation.
There is no continuous tide gauge data and they all believe in the satellite altimetry -- JI
Comment: To those who have been fed Greenie propaganda, this must seem inexplicable but it is in fact a common finding. The very carefully set (in 1841) Isle of the Dead gauge in Tasmania also shows a mean sea-level fall of about a foot -- and a survey of Australian tide gauges found that nearly half of them showed falls.
And because Australia is remarkably stable geologically, Australian data is of particular interest. Rising and falling of the land can mostly be ruled out in Australia. So, contrary to the IPCC, the sea level has not risen as a result of the slight C20 temperature rise.
There are many sea-level records showing falling in the Northern hemisphere too. So how come we haven't heard of them? Because the commonly published records are ADJUSTED ones. We rarely get to see the raw data. The theory is that the ground is rising as a rebound from the weight of ice that vanished after the last ice age (isostatic rebound). So the Warmists have a formula to "correct" for rising of the ground. And that highly theoretical formula turns a sea-level fall into a slight rise.
But the last ice age went away thousands of years ago. Surely any rebound effect would have completed long ago. So it is pure theory and quite improbable theory which tells us that sea levels have been rising over C20 and earlier. It is not only the temperature readings that have been adjusted. The sea level data has been adjusted too.
Even if we allow the possibility that there is still some isostatic rebound going on, can we believe a rise of a foot in very recent times? It's just another fraud. With an acceleration like that, most of Europe and North America should be as high as the Himalayas.
Post a Comment
All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them