Sea rise threatens 'paradise' Down Under

Jul 20, 2012 by Amy Coopes
Felt sheeting is seen draped over sandhills to help slow the progress of erosion in front of the Meridien holiday apartments at Old Bar Beach at the coastal town of Old Bar in Australia's New South Wales state. Old Bar is the most rapidly eroding and at-risk piece of coast in populous New South Wales state, losing an average one metre of seafront every year.

When Elaine Pearce left Sydney for the seaside peace of Old Bar 12 years ago she was assured her new house was a solid investment, with a century's worth of frontage to guard against erosion.

But three have already lost their homes to the rising ocean and there are scores more at risk as roaring seas batter the idyllic beachside town, ploughing through 40 metres (131 feet) of foredune in just eight years.

"I wanted water frontage, and frontage I'm going to get," Pearce joked.

Property values have dived along her once exclusive cul-de-sac, with homes once worth Aus$1.5 or Aus$2 million (US$1.5 or $2 million) now abandoned and offered for Aus$300,000. Weathered 'For Sale' signs dot the sidewalk.

Insurers will not cover homes for and long-time local resident Allan Willan said the banks were even struggling to sell off the land on which the repossessed homes stand.

"They can't even give it away," said Willan, who estimates that another five metres of frontage could "easily" be lost in the next storm period.

"If it continues at this rate in seven years it's going to be at the front door."

Old Bar is the most rapidly eroding and at-risk piece of coast in populous New South Wales state, losing an average one metre of seafront every year and far outstripping other areas in terms of property at risk.

Elaine Pearce from the Old Bar Sand Replenishment Group, seen here outside her home at the coastal town of Old Bar, in Australia's New South Wales state. Old Bar is the most rapidly eroding and at-risk piece of coast in populous New South Wales state, losing an average one metre of seafront every year and far outstripping other areas in terms of property at risk.

Andrew Short, director of Sydney University's coastal studies unit and a government planning advisor, said the 4,000-person town was among the worst erosion sites in Australia, with huge volumes of sand routinely lost in storms.

Currently there are 14 similar "hot-spots" along the densely populated NSW coast -- a region home to some 5.8 million -- with about 100 properties at risk.

But Short said "many hundreds of properties, if not thousands" would be at risk in the next 50-100 years as sea levels rise due to , with planning authorities factoring in a one-metre increase over the next century.

Australia's government estimates that more than Aus$226 billion in commercial, industrial and residential property and road and rail infrastructure is at risk from erosion and inundation by 2100.

That forecast includes 274,000 homes.

Old Bar has been in the grip of an unprecedented storm period, in terms of both frequency and strength, and University of New South Wales oceanographer Matthew England said it was a trend likely to intensify.

"The rise is one thing, but we're expecting storms to become more intense and storm surges are what really hits these low-lying coastal communities," said England.

England said a one-metre sea level rise could "really quickly" become four metres during a wild weather event, bringing "a really incredible rise of water right up the coast that just can do huge amounts of damage".

Coastal erosion is evident in front of the Meridien holiday apartments at Old Bar Beach at the coastal town of Old Bar, in Australia's New South Wales state. Old Bar is the most rapidly eroding and at-risk piece of coast in the populous state, losing an average one metre of seafront every year and far outstripping other areas in terms of property at risk.

Even with a 50 centimetre sea-level rise the government has warned that severe weather events currently considered to be once in a century, such as the major flooding of Brisbane in 2010, would happen several times a year by 2100.

More than 30 people died and tens of thousands of homes were swamped in the floods that swept across northern Australia and peaked in Brisbane, forcing Australia's third-largest city to a standstill for several days.

Major cities were expected to face profound challenges from erosion and inundation, with the government warning in a 2009 report that Sydney's airport faced closure in the next 100 years due to its low-lying waterfront location.

Ports, hospitals, power stations and other critical infrastructure were also deemed to be at risk.

Short said the issue was at a "tipping point" in the public's consciousness, with new local planning guidelines showing future sea level projections and requiring people to take measures such as elevating their property.

In the longer term, authorities faced a mammoth task to counter the problem, with roads, drainage systems and other infrastructure also needing lifting, he added.

England said Australia "certainly stands to be hit with massive increased costs" from sea level rise, with 85 percent of its population living near the coast and insurance and liability battles already looming in the courts.

"We've seen some properties already across the coast being devalued by as much as 50 percent because of their vulnerability to storm surges," he said.

"And we're only at the very start of the projected trend from human-induced climate change."

The residents of Old Bar are banking on a government lifeline to help them build a Aus$10 million artificial reef offshore to protect their dwindling beach.

For her part, Pearce has little doubt about the cause: "Climate change. It's worldwide, isn't it."

Explore further: Culvert repairs pose environmental risks, require safeguards

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Chilling climate-change related news

Feb 17, 2012

A presentation at the world’s largest science fair by a Simon Fraser University earth sciences professor promises to make the skin crawl of even the most ardent disbelievers of the predicted impacts of climate change.

Sea levels set to rise by up to a metre: report

May 23, 2011

Sea levels are set to rise by up to a metre within a century due to global warming, a new Australian report said Monday as it warned this could make "once-a-century" coastal flooding much more common.

Recommended for you

Confucian thought and China's environmental dilemmas

3 hours ago

Conventional wisdom holds that China - the world's most populous country - is an inveterate polluter, that it puts economic goals above conservation in every instance. So China's recent moves toward an apparent ...

Deforestation threatens species richness in streams

4 hours ago

With a population of 1.3 billion, China is under immense pressure to convert suitable areas into arable land in order to ensure a continued food supply for its people. Accordingly, China is among the top ...

User comments : 49

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Graeme
5 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2012
Well the people that died in Queensland floods really were not a result of rising sea level, as this article suggests. What kills people is not a high tide, but fast flowing streams.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 20, 2012
sandhills erosion ... not sea level rise.

Sand is not the most stable of material for building on.
Billybaroo
4 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2012
Beach erosion often occurs as a result of signficant reductions in the supply of sediment from nearby tributaries, mostly as a result of damming of rivers and streams. Combined storms and high tides will create significant erosion problems. This erosion can be effectively explained without bringing up climate change and rising sea levels.
NotParker
2 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2012
To me it looks live sea level is dropping very slightly according to the BOM.

Beginning of 2002 - 0.948
Beginning of 2012 - 0.899

http://www.bom.go...3SLI.pdf

http://www.bom.go...LD.shtml
djr
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2012
sandhills erosion ... not sea level rise.

And of course - in Parkers world - they have nothing to do with each other - just part of the grand conspiracy...
Shelgeyr
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2012
What sea level rise?

As others have pointed out, this is about erosion. Just erosion.

They're not related.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2012
How odd the minds of the mentally diseased are.

Above ParkerTard claims that he sees sea levels dropping and then as a reference provides a graph showing the exact opposite.

http://www.bom.go...3SLI.pdf

"To me it looks live sea level is dropping very slightly according to the BOM.' - ParkerTard

Last year ParkerTard and the denialists were claiming that the ocean levels were falling faster than ever. But of course their cherry picking nonsense has turned out to be as dishonest as always.

Here is an up to date plot of global ocean levels.

http://www.carbon...2012.jpg
djr
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 21, 2012
What sea level rise?

Well - here on planet Earth - the sea levels are rising - I can't speak for your world Shel. As for the suggestion that sea level rise - and beach erosion are not related - you guys get bolder with your rubbish every day.....
NotParker
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2012
To me it looks live sea level is dropping very slightly according to the BOM.

Beginning of 2002 - 0.948
Beginning of 2012 - 0.899

http://www.bom.go...3SLI.pdf


.049m lower.

49mm lower

10 years of negative sea level rise on the coast of New South Wales according to the tide gauges of the Australia Bureau of Meteorology.
ROBTHEGOB
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2012
Oregon has had the same problem: building too close to the beach. Give up; the ocean will win.
djr
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 21, 2012
"10 years of negative sea level rise"

Once again - Sherlock Parker uncovers the great global conspiracy - good job we have Parker to comb through individual tide gauge records - in order to uncover the evil scientists who would lie to us about the sea levels rising... Of course - looking at the average of 23 tide gauges - that are supported by satellite altimetry - we are not that gullible my friends - http://upload.wik...Rise.png
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 21, 2012
dir, the data seems to end in 2003 or sooner. Old. Even then it appears to have no real rise for the last 10 years.

Which tide gauges are being graphed?

We are discussing claims that NSW sea level is rising and nearest tide gauge is not.

The PSML graph is even worse for your cult.

http://www.psmsl....high.png

http://www.psmsl..../831.php

1994.0416; 7164
2011.0416; 7099

It went up after 1994 of course, and came back down, and it is now lower than 1994.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2012
ParkerTard's latest lie is easy to expose.

http://www.carbon...2012.jpg

"Even then it appears to have no real rise for the last 10 years." - ParkerTard

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2012
Once again the mentally challenged ParkerTard makes the following claim...

"The PSML graph is even worse for your cult." - ParkerTard

Followed by posting plots that show the exact opposite, which in this case are graphs showing an increase in seal level by about 50 mm over the last 15 years.

Poor, Mentally ill ParkerTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2012
ParkerTard's third lie is easily exposed by the same graph that exposed his first lie...

http://www.carbon...2012.jpg

"It went up after 1994 of course, and came back down, and it is now lower than 1994." - ParkerTard

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2012
"We are discussing claims that NSW sea level is rising"

I am discussing claims that sea levels are not rising - I contend they are rising. Here is the wiki article that my graph came from http://en.wikiped...ea_level

Being that Parker constantly takes subsets of data - and tries to make grand proclamations about the global conspiracy of scientists to manipulate data in order to control funding - I no longer engage with his rubbish - but I do occasionally put out the information that shows his posts up to be rubbish. I present a wiki article that has global level data showing sea level rise over the last 100 yrs of about 25 cm. Parker selects one tide gauge and thinks he has said something significant.... It is curious how Parker can always find the one reading that contradicts the global data - wonder if that is confirmation bias...
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2012
"We are discussing claims that NSW sea level is rising"

I am discussing claims that sea levels are not rising - I contend they are rising. Here is the wiki article that my graph came from http://en.wikiped...ea_level


The graph was added in 2005. The data appears to only go to 2003.

My data is up to date.

Response from a Moron: Tard

djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2012
"Response from a Moron: Tard." Smile - Parker has been taking lessons from Vendi - perhaps thinks that such comments give credibility - I would say the response of someone who does not have credibility - claiming sea levels are not rising. If Parker wants more up to date data - http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ Notice the trend continues unabated. Although of course facts are not on Parker's side - so throwing insults around are all that is left.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2012
ParkerTard's third lie is easily exposed by the same graph that exposed his first lie...

http://www.carbon...2012.jpg

"It went up after 1994 of course, and came back down, and it is now lower than 1994." - ParkerTard

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2012
"From this they calculated a mean global sea level rise of 1.61 mm/year over the last century. Figure 1 shows that sea level rise has remained constant since 1940 no acceleration over the last 70 years!"

http://notrickszo...el-rise/

Sea Level Rise is constant ... and low.

Remember greenies, the scary green liars said 1000mm by 2100.

At 1.61mm per year it will only take 621 years!
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2012
Greenie: Help, help my home will soon be under water because of sea level rise.

Reality: Since when is 621 years "soon"?
MikPetter
1 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2012
Extract from
National Tidal Centre Australian Bureau of Meteorology
THE AUSTRALIAN BASELINE SEA LEVEL MONITORING PROJECT : ANNUAL SEA LEVEL DATA SUMMARY REPORT
JULY 2010 - JUNE 2011
Table 5 : The net relative sea level trend estimates to June 2011 after vertical movements in the observing platform relative to a local land benchmark and the inverted barometric pressure effect are taken into account. page 35

Port Kembla Installation date 1991
Net Relative Sea Level Trend (mm/yr) 2.6 mm/yr increase
Change from June 2010 (mm/yr) 0.5mm/yr increase
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2012
Extract from
National Tidal Centre Australian Bureau of Meteorology
THE AUSTRALIAN BASELINE SEA LEVEL MONITORING PROJECT : ANNUAL SEA LEVEL DATA SUMMARY REPORT
JULY 2010 - JUNE 2011
Table 5 : The net relative sea level trend estimates to June 2011 after vertical movements in the observing platform relative to a local land benchmark and the inverted barometric pressure effect are taken into account. page 35

Port Kembla Installation date 1991
Net Relative Sea Level Trend (mm/yr) 2.6 mm/yr increase
Change from June 2010 (mm/yr) 0.5mm/yr increase


Yes. The recent data shows low or negative sea level rise.
MikPetter
1 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2012
For those who can't do maths THE AUSTRALIAN BASELINE SEA LEVEL MONITORING PROJECT : ANNUAL SEA LEVEL DATA SUMMARY REPORT JULY 2010 - JUNE 2011 shows that Port Kembla sea level rise increased from 2.1mm/yr to 2.6mm/yr june 2010 to june 2011 a year on year increase in the rate of 0.5mm
Howhot
5 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2012
NP says, "Greenie: Help, help my home will soon be under water because of sea level rise."

Here is an interactive sea level map for people to use for planning.

http://flood.firetree.net/

Funny about the 0.5 mm/yr rate thing NP. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ says it's 3.1 mm/yr - 0.4mm
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2012
Here is an up to date plot of global ocean levels.

http://www.carbon...2012.jpg
Your graph from a warming alarmist site appears inaccurate. Here's the official U.S. Sea Level Research Group graph (and it has a built in .3mm per year bias):

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2012
For those who can't do maths THE AUSTRALIAN BASELINE SEA LEVEL MONITORING PROJECT : ANNUAL SEA LEVEL DATA SUMMARY REPORT JULY 2010 - JUNE 2011 shows that Port Kembla sea level rise increased from 2.1mm/yr to 2.6mm/yr june 2010 to june 2011 a year on year increase in the rate of 0.5mm


The Australian BOM disagress with that.

http://www.bom.go...LD.shtml

NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2012
NP says, "Greenie: Help, help my home will soon be under water because of sea level rise."

Here is an interactive sea level map for people to use for planning.

http://flood.firetree.net/ says it's 3.1 mm/yr - 0.4mm


They also say it was 3.1mm a year since they started, even though 2010 to 2011 showed a 6mm drop in sea level.

http://sealevel.c...obal.txt

ZERO acceleration in sea level rise, if with all the adjustments.

No change.

Same rate as 20 years ago. (not really, but thats what they say).

AGW Cult: 1 meter by 2100!!!!

Reality: Thats 1000mm. How much does your cult say it is rising?

AGW Cult: 3.1mm

Reality: How long will it take to get to 1000mm?

AGW Cult: TARD!!!!

Reality: 333 years.

AGW Cult: TARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2012
"long term tide gauges, recording sea levels worldwide, as well as along the coastline of Australia, and within the bay of Sydney, do not show any sign of accelerating sea level rises at present time.

Long term recording tide gauges show weak sea level rises and no acceleration.

Recent satellite indirect measurements show more intense sea level rises but still no acceleration.

There is no proof in the measured data that sea level is presently accelerating.

Sea level rises of meters in the bay of Sydney are not very likely to occur in the short term."

http://www.scienc...12000154

AGW Brain Trust Response: TARD!!!!
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2012
NP says:
Recent satellite indirect measurements show more intense sea level rises but still no acceleration.


It kind of depends on how rapidly all of the melting ice packs from Greenland and Antarctic occurs, well that and the thermal expansion of the oceans from global temperature rise. Based on what is expected from the exponential rise in polar temperatures in response to the exponential CO2 level rise, rapid sea level rise should follow.

Examples of where sea level rise is being taken seriously, just look at Holland, or Venice Italy where planning is critical to their survival.

It's just a sign of the bigger problems this planet is going to face from global warming, and to be honest, over population.
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2012
NP says:
Recent satellite indirect measurements show more intense sea level rises but still no acceleration.


It kind of depends on how rapidly all of the melting ice packs from Greenland and Antarctic occurs, well that and the thermal expansion of the oceans from global temperature rise. Based on what is expected from the exponential rise in polar temperatures in response to the exponential CO2 level rise, rapid sea level rise should follow.

Examples of where sea level rise is being taken seriously, just look at Holland, or Venice Italy where planning is critical to their survival.

It's just a sign of the bigger problems this planet is going to face from global warming, and to be honest, over population.


Are you trying to suggest that the earth hasn't warmed up yet as an explanation for why there has been no acceleration in sea level rise?

Why have you been lying to us all this time?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2012
Sorry Tard Boy, but the data is identical to yours, with the exception of a couple of more months of data on your graph, and a different smoothing period.

"Your graph from a warming alarmist site appears inaccurate." - UbVonTard

Get back to us when you graduate from grade 5 and know how to interpret a simple line graph.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2012
No it doesn't. It has a 0.3mm/year bias removed.

http://sealevel.c...rrect-it

"(and it has a built in .3mm per year bias)" - UbVonTard

Poor UbVonTard. If his father got as much backwards as he does, he would never have been born.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2012
ParkerTard's lie is as easy to expose the fifth time around as it was the first.

https://docs.goog...xNEJYZFU

"Are you trying to suggest that the earth hasn't warmed up yet as an explanation for why there has been no acceleration in sea level rise?" - ParkerTard

What can be said about a person like ParkerTard that continues to tell the same lie in the face of irrefutable evidence?

Two words...

Mental Disease.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2012
Sorry, but the data is identical to yours, with the exception of a couple of more months of data on your graph, and a different smoothing period.
Obviously, not.

Denying your data is incorrect doesn't make it correct.

Get back to me when you graduate from grade 5 and know how to interpret a simple line graph.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2012
No it doesn't. It has a 0.3mm/year bias removed.

http://sealevel.c...rrect-it


You're an idiot. They're adding .3mm to compensate for a supposed -.3mm influence.

From your own reference:

"This means that if we measure a change in GMSL of 3 mm/yr, the volume change is actually closer to 3.3 mm/yr because of GIA."

So, a measured 3mm rise magically becomes 3.3mm.

Poor VendiTard. If his father got as much backwards as he does, he would never have been born.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2012
So ahh ubavontuba, what part of glacial isostatic adjustments do you not understand???
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2012
So ahh ubavontuba, what part of glacial isostatic adjustments do you not understand???


The part where satellite sea level diverges farther and farther from tide gauge data.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2012
So ahh ubavontuba, what part of glacial isostatic adjustments do you not understand???
I understand it quite well. It's nothing more than a fudge factor used to allow them to show higher numbers. The volume of the sea is irrelevant to any global warming/sea level rise argument. What matters is the sea level relative to land.

Howhot
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2012
The part where satellite sea level diverges farther and farther from tide gauge data.


And which data do you trust NP? The satellite or the tide gauge data. Given that the Moon has huge influences on the oceans, in this case, I would choose the satellite because of it's broad and accurate coverage over wide areas.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2012
And yet it comes from AVISO a CNES subgroup that produces ocean level tracking using satellite observation, Jason and other observing systems.

http://www.aviso....ges.html

"Obviously, not. Your data is incorrect" - UbVonTard

I see that you are clearly still not capable of comprehending a simple graph.

You poor tard you.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2012
Yup. It's all a conspiracy.

You have exposed it with your application of kindergarten science and your inability to understand simple line graphs.

Did it ever occur to you, Tard Boy, that these Oceanographers, whom you claim are in on the global warming conspiracy, might actually be interested in changes in the ocean volume rather than absolute ocean level since absolute ocean level does not directly translate to local ocean height changes?

"It's nothing more than a fudge factor used to allow them to show higher numbers." - UbVonTard

Na... That wouldn't occur to you. Your simple mind is incapable of such comprehension. It must be part of the global conspiracy among all of the world's scientists. That is a much simpler concept for your tiny little brain to comprehend.

You poor Tard.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2012
I take it that you intend to remain an idiot for the rest of your life.

"The volume of the sea is irrelevant to any global warming/sea level rise argument." - UbVonTard

You are absolutely right. Volume, Area, Depth. They are all completely unrelated.

How silly of me to expect you to know otherwise.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2012
It seems a simple enough concept to understand.

"The part where satellite sea level diverges farther and farther from tide gauge data." - ParkerTard

And as you say, ParkerTard doesn't seem capable of understanding when he is posing under the name UbVonTard.

ParkerTard is going to get really foncused when it realizes that ocean water self-gravitates, and is attracted to continental rock which is itself rising in some places and falling in others.

All require corrections from the general change in ocean depth to local changes in relative ocean level. The isostatic adjustment is made first because it is global in scope.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2012
I think that oceanographers are probably interested in ocean depth and hence adding 0.3mm to adjust the surface altitude measurements for a deepening ocean basin makes sense.

"They're adding .3mm to compensate for a supposed -.3mm influence." - UbVonTard

I can see how it wouldn't make sense to you, as you are devoid of common sense, uncommon sense, or any other sense that I can determine.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2012
And yet it comes from AVISO a CNES subgroup that produces ocean level tracking using satellite observation, Jason and other observing systems.
It looks doctored.

Here's your graph:

http://www.carbon...2012.jpg

The official AVISO graph looks like this:

http://www.aviso....just.png

Notice how the trend levels off on the official AVISO graph? But yours peaks upwards at the end and has data points which don't exist on the AVISO graph. Why is that?

But it's all mute. The best available data shows it's staying below the long term trend, still:

http://sealevel.c...obal.pdf

I see that you are clearly still not capable of comprehending a simple graph.

You poor tard you.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2012
Did it ever occur to you, that these Oceanographers, whom you claim are in on the global warming conspiracy, might actually be interested in changes in the ocean volume rather than absolute ocean level since absolute ocean level does not directly translate to local ocean height changes?
Idiot. Sea volume is an "eustatic sea level" measurement and land based sea levels are "relative sea level" measurements. If your claim is: "Melting glaciers are going to flood the land." only relative sea level is relevant.

But that wouldn't occur to you. Your simple mind is incapable of such comprehension.

You poor Tard.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2012
I think that oceanographers are probably interested in ocean depth and hence adding 0.3mm to adjust the surface altitude measurements for a deepening ocean basin makes sense.
Says the idiot that just claimed:

"No it doesn't. It has a 0.3mm/year bias removed." - Venditard

("removed" being the opposite of "adding").

What a buffoon.

I can see how it wouldn't make sense to you though, as you are devoid of common sense, uncommon sense, or any other sense that I can determine.
NotParker
2 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2012
The part where satellite sea level diverges farther and farther from tide gauge data.


And which data do you trust NP? The satellite or the tide gauge data. Given that the Moon has huge influences on the oceans, in this case, I would choose the satellite because of it's broad and accurate coverage over wide areas.



Neither satellite or tide gauges show an acceleration in sea level rise.

The problem with satellite is that the satellites change every few years.

The adjustments of sea level by Colorado are embarrassing.

And the explanation for the large drop in sea level in 2010 -- it rained a lot -- is a joke.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.