Sea level study distorted by journalists

Official complaint regarding inaccuracy

(Sent to the Herald today)

The Herald yesterday carried an article on sea level rise in the Solomon Islands. Villages have been abandoned and whole islands lost beneath the waves. Climate change is forcing people from their homes. Catastrophic sea level rise is already on us and we’re causing it.

This is incorrect. It is another attempt to mislead us into believing our emissions of carbon dioxide are causing sea level rise.

The article leaves a bad taste in the mouth, for the journalist misrepresents the scientific paper it’s based on, claiming that it proves that villages and houses have been lost to anthropogenic climate change, though the paper says nothing of the sort.

The story was written by Ben Guarino at the Washington Post and cites a newly-released paper, Interactions between sea-level rise and wave exposure on reef island dynamics in the Solomon Islands (2016, Environmental Research Letters). Guarino’s description of the paper is grossly misleading:

In a recent paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the scientists link the destructive sea level rise to anthropogenic – that is, human-caused – climate change. The study is the first time anyone has concretely analysed the loss of Solomon Island shoreline in the context of global warming, they say.

Global story change

Minutes before posting this, I discovered that numerous papers, magazines and web sites are pushing the story that the new paper proves climate change is to blame for drowning houses and five whole islands. Though I focus on the Washington Post, dozens of outlets have distorted the paper’s results in the same way.

The scientists do not link any shoreline changes to man-made climate change. The Herald should be deeply ashamed to publish this blatantly incorrect statement.

The scientists didn’t study the Solomon Islands to assess the effects of climate change. They thought the Solomons might show them what could happen to Pacific atolls in the future. All the way through, the study is interested only in future climate change and its effects. Perhaps that’s an oddly limited goal, but it’s announced in the first sentence:

Low-lying reef islands in the Solomon Islands provide a valuable window into the future impacts of global sea-level rise.

They specifically state that no link has previously been shown between shoreline recession on reef islands and climate change.

Whilst shoreline recession has been documented on atolls over past decades, the majority of studies have not specifically demonstrated evidence linking shoreline recession to recent sea-level rise (Webb and Kench 2010, Le Cozannet et al 2014). The limited research that has been conducted to date on the responses of reef islands in the western Pacific indicates that islands are highly dynamic, with coastal erosion and inundation threatening infrastructure, resulting generally from extreme events, human armouring of shorelines (e.g. seawalls) or inappropriate planning and development rather than sea-level rise alone (Bayliss-Smith 1988, Merrifield and Maltrud 2011, Ford 2012, Biribo and Woodroffe 2013, Hoeke et al 2013, Mann and Westphal 2014).

This position is adhered to throughout the paper and into the conclusion. Nowhere do the authors say climate change is now causing coastal erosion or inundation, they only say it is predicted, and they do not say the five drowned islands were lost to climate change. They constantly remind us of substantial rises predicted for later this century.

They acknowledge tectonic movements causing land to sink in the Solomon Islands. Guarino, on the other hand (echoed uncritically by the Herald), dramatically announces:

As the ocean rose, they had to flee.

Which is true enough, but leaves out the vital fact that sea level rise (which everybody thinks we cause) was greatly assisted by sinking land (which everybody knows we don’t cause). The lead author, Simon Albert, appears to foster the impression that the paper shows climate change caused the loss of houses and land, but is that actually Guarino again distorting Albert’s emailed comments?

When it comes to island erosion, several factors can mask or overpower the effects of climate change; Albert mentioned plate tectonics, hurricanes, waves, and human disturbances like seawalls or reclamation projects. In the new paper, the researchers attempted to home in on the effects of climate change as much as possible. – emphasis added

So says the scientist—or was it the journalist—and is he referring to present or future climate change? All we can confirm right now is that the paper does not attempt to say what caused coastal erosion, inundation or sea level rise. Instead, it says:


This study represents the first assessment of shoreline change from the Solomon Islands, a global sea-level rise hotspot. We have documented five vegetated reef islands (1–5 ha in size) that have recently vanished and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations. The large range of erosion severity on the islands in this study highlights the critical need to understand the complex interplay between the projected accelerating sea-level rise, other changes in global climate such as winds and waves, and local tectonics, to guide future adaptation planning and minimise social impacts.

That tells us it was the journalist who inserted comments about “homing in” on the effects of climate change, for the lead author would hardly forget what he had written. But, what was inexcusable, he put the words in the scientist’s mouth. An utterly disgraceful thing to publish — and just to raise false alarm.

SEAFRAME monitoring stations

mthly sea levels 1992 - march 2016

— Click to enlarge —

The paper mentions several studies that use tide gauge data. The March 2016 Monthly Data Report (at right) from the long-standing Australian project, the Pacific Sea Level Monitoring Project (PSLMP), shows that over the last 22 years, sea level in the Solomon Islands has risen at an average 4.6 mm per year, for a total rise of 101 mm (four inches), though since 2011 it has been falling. The report advises readers: “Please exercise caution in interpreting the overall rates of movement of sea level — the records are too short to be inferring long-term trends.

One is hard-pressed to believe houses have disappeared beneath only 100 mm of water. In truth, the only conceivable way that happened was for the land to sink under tectonic movement. Same with the five vanishing islands. Scientists in touch with complex marine and geophysical realities understand this; for some reason this team either don’t understand it or failed to be open about it.

But this whole article is full of hand-waving and hot air; the Herald (and the Washington Post) hoping to sell more shocking newspapers and the scientists hoping for more funding. It seems nobody cares about presenting the truth.

This is an official complaint about inaccuracy


  1. The headline says the paper blames climate change but it actually assigns no cause at all.
  2. Statements in the article that climate change is causing coastal recession do not occur in the paper.
  3. Statements in the article that houses and five islands have drowned because of climate change do not occur in the paper.

Kind regards,

Richard Treadgold.

Leave a Reply

147 Comment threads
5 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
Notify of
Richard C (NZ)

Lead author Simon Albert supports you all the way RT:

‘Media Exaggerated Vanishing Island Climate Role’

Media exaggerated the role of climate change in the disappearance of five reef islands detailed in a scientific paper published last week, according to the study’s author.

The paper, published on Friday (6 May 2016), reports on the loss of five vegetated reef islands and changes to other reef island shorelines in the Solomon Islands. News stories subsequently appeared in The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and The Washington Post and other media outlets implying that the study linked the disappearance of the islands to climate change.

But lead author Simon Albert, from the University of Queensland, has complained that the media headlines have misinterpreted the science by confusing sea level rise with climate change and implying the islands were lost due to climate change. The Guardian has run a second story reporting on Albert’s concerns: ““All these headlines are certainly pushing things a bit towards the ‘climate change has made islands vanish’ angle. I would prefer slightly more moderate titles that focus on sea-level rise being the driver rather than simply ‘climate change’,” Albert told The Guardian.


Maggy Wassilieff

The scientific paper is poorly prepared. 1.The authors do not make it clear that there are no vertical measurements for the disappearing islands. The readers are expected to take the authors’ word that tectonic events (subsidence) have not been involved in the disappearance of the islands. For one of the most tectonically complex regions on Earth, this is hard to swallow. 2. For three of the islands that disappeared, (Ropita, Kakatina, Zollies) the majority of land loss occurred between 1947 and 1962… a time when atmospheric CO2 levels were below 320ppm and would have been an insignificant contributor to any enhanced global warming. 3. Figure 6 is a confusion of naturally fluctuating sea-levels measured in the Solomon islands superimposed on a background of IPCC models of rising sea levels. The reader’s eye is drawn to the increasing trend of the models and away from the actual data that illustrate a repetitive cycle (due to Pacific oscillation) and not an acceleration in sea-level rise. To a certain extent, the authors must accept responsibility for the inaccurate coverage the MSM has given to their scientific paper. They have a duty to present a clear… Read more »

Maggy Wassilieff

Here is an article that asks who was responsible for hyping the Climate change angle on the disappearing Islands in the Solomons.


From Wattsupwiththat
The sea levels of the Solomon Islands are rising of 7-10 mm yr-1 only by cherry picking
Guest essay by Albert Parker
The alarmistic claim originates from riding the positive phase of the inter-annual, decadal and multi-decadal oscillations typical of the sea levels over a cherry picked short time window of 10-15 years, neglecting what was measured before 1994 by another tide gauge in pretty much same location, and also neglecting what has been measured in the same tide gauge since 2009.


Richard I am merely an interested bystander who drops by here every now and then, I agree with your letter to the Herald absolutely. I also agree with Albert Parker and his assertion that the data is insufficient.
The paper does itself no favours with statements like – (How islands and the communities that inhabit them respond to climate) and (recently observed in the Solomon Islands for all but the very lowest emission scenarios.) As with any mention of “climate change” or “emissions” new meanings and assumptions are made and bias rears its head, I have noticed journalists are particularly good at this.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Also, he [Albert] muddies the water with some of his statements in the paper, doesn’t he?” I haven’t had time to read the paper but going by Maggy’s analysis, she seems to be being kind saying “The scientific paper is poorly prepared”. But a paper I am familiar with, and I think should be requiresd reading for anyone (especially journalists, and Albert) considering the topic of global or regional SLR, rules out any ideas of a human fingerprint in Pacific sea levels: ‘Is anthropogenic sea level fingerprint already detectable in the Pacific Ocean?’ H Palanisamy, B Meyssignac,A Cazenave and T Delcroix (2015) The answer is “no”, and we would have to wait decades for a signal to emerge from natural fluctuation (if it ever was to emerge). Check out Figure 1 (a) page 7, zoom in to 200% say. The stippled areas in the East Pacific are statistically significant sea level FALL of -2 to -4+ mm/year. 2. Data and methods 2.1. Satellite altimetry sea level (1993–2013) So that’s -20 to -40 mm/decade FALL or 40 to 80 mm total FALL over the series. 4 – 8+ cms FALL. I say this… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

In a similar vein:

‘9 mm/year of sea level rise in South East Florida? Only if you cherry-pick’
Guest essay by Albert Parker

“The SLR10 [10 years time windows] changes significantly already month-by-month, and dramatically year-by-year or decade-by-decade. Over the years, the SLR10 has fluctuated between +12.93 and -7.05 mm/year.”


In related news, we have assembled a peer review panel to review the Tonkin and Taylor report for Christchurch.

I’m not sure if this is public yet, so I’ll hold off any further info. The review is supposed to be fairly quick.

Richard C (NZ)

SMH “Sea level rise expert” John Church article:

As Dr Church notes, including in a Nature paper [hotlink – see below] published last month, sea-level increases are accelerating as a warming planet melts glaciers and swells oceans.

From increases of a few tenths of a millimetre annually in the 1000 years before about 1850, the rate jumped 1.7 mm on average in the 20th century. Since 1993, the rise has quickened to about 3 mm a year, he says.

Yeah right John – WHERE?

I doubt he can find ONE tide guage around the world that conforms to that “average”.

Another tide guage -satellite splice bogosity combined with CMIP5 models (i.e. a double down):

Anthropogenic forcing dominates global mean sea-level rise since 1970
Aimée B. A. Slangen,
John A. Church,
Cecile Agosta,
Xavier Fettweis,
Ben Marzeion,
& Kristin Richter

If that’s “expert” then it wont be missed when it’s gone.


Do you really think that you understand more about sea level rise than John Church?
Ask yourself honestly whether you exhibit any of these symptoms:
Cognitive bias,
Illusory superiority,
Self-serving bias,
Ultracrepidarianism ,
Superiority complex,
Metacognitive inability of the unskilled.


John Church is truly a great man.
He has pioneered the technique of splicing together two datasets from different instrumental sources (satellite and tide gauge) that have nothing, apparently, in common, to create the illusion of an acceleration when none exists in either the tide gauge by itself or the satellite by itself

Possibly Nobel Prize material, I would have thought.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Do you really think that you understand more about sea level rise than John Church?”

Yes apparently, sea level FALL too. At least able to use an internet connection more effectively than him.

Examples John Church might find enlightening (or not):

Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends [NOAA]

Proves John Church dead wrong on long running trends and by intermediate moving 5 year 50 year trends.


‘Is anthropogenic sea level fingerprint already detectable in the Pacific Ocean?’
H Palanisamy, B Meyssignac,A Cazenave and T Delcroix (2015)

The answer is of course “no”, and we will have to wait decades if it is to ever emerge. Even then it has to emerge from 20th century natural fluctuation (tall order)

And see Figure 1 Simon, blue area in particular (sea level FALL). Educate yourself and send it to John Church for his edification.

But then your’re just a troll Simon, you wont re-visit your fly-by sniping will you?


From Church and White 2006

Multi-century sea-level records and climate models indicate an acceleration of sea-level rise, but no 20th century acceleration has previously been detected. A reconstruction of global sea level using tide-gauge data from 1950 to 2000 indicates a larger rate of rise after 1993 and other periods of rapid sea-level rise but no significant acceleration over this period. Here, we extend the reconstruction of global mean sea level back to 1870 and find a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm yr−1 and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm yr−2. This acceleration is an important confirmation of climate change simulations which show an acceleration not previously observed. If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR.

But no “one metre” projections, even with those rather speculative claims

Richard C (NZ)

>”A reconstruction of global sea level using tide-gauge data” [Church and White] Baloney. There is no such thing as “global” sea level either tide guage or satellite. Beenstock et al showed that conclusively: TIDE GAUGE LOCATION AND THE MEASUREMENT OF GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE Beenstock et al Although mean sea levels are rising by 1mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States. In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year. Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges. In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6mm/year. The notion of “global” SLR is absurd when 65% of tide guages exhibit no rise at all. It then only takes relatively few guages (35%) to skew the mean. That’s all Church and White are looking at, they fooled themselves with the “global average illusion” and then propagated it for the unwary in the public domain.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

RT >….it must be a blatant exaggeration that they describe a claimed acceleration of 1.3 mm/100 yr as “significant” No, the acceleration they claim is stated in technically correct terms for an “acceleration”, viz: 0.013 ± 0.006 mm yr−2 This means 0.013 mm per year PER YEAR i.e. the rise is accelerating 0.013 mm ON TOP OF the previous years rise. So if say (just to demonstrate), a starting constant non-accelerating trend is 1 mm/yr, then the acceleration commences. 1 yr after the commencement, 1 + 0.013 = 1.013 rise. After 2 yrs 1.013 (1st yr) + 1.013 + 0.013 (2nd yr) = 3.052 mm rise over 2 yrs since commencement and so on. After say 10 years, the linear trend of the “acceleration” will pass ABOVE the accelerating CURVE in the early part and BELOW the curve in the later part and will be GREATER than the original 1 mm/yr obviously. So with the actual globally averaged data (bogus – see below), C & W end up with (annotated): “a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm yr−1 [linear trend] and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of… Read more »


I can’t seem to reproduce the “280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR.” with the accelerations defined.

The formula for SLR assuming a quadratic is:

s(t) = v t + (1/2) a (t^2)

where v = linear trend at start, a = acceleration, and s(t) = sea level at time t

It is possible they left the 2 out in the extrapolation, though the “half” bit gets mentioned in the paper in calculating the acceleration from the assumed quadratic fit

[9] Fitting a quadratic to the GMSL time series gives an acceleration (twice the quadratic coefficient) of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm yr−2 (95%) for 1870 to 2001.

Mike Jowsey

My take-away headline is:
“Sea levels are not rising according to 65 percent of tide gauges”

Richard C (NZ)

Should be:

“The US [Air Force] discovered that the “average” pilot……..did not exist”

Richard C (NZ)

>”I’m guessing when I say the acceleration was not significant.”

Yes, Andy’s onto that. The “average” measured acceleration does not RE-produce the greater SLR acceleration produced by the CO2-forced climate models.

That’s because a) relatively small localised areas (“Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States” – Beenstock et al) skew the global mean rendering it meaningless and b) CO2 forcing is obviously not the sea level driver in any ocean basin.

Again, this paper from upthread is critical:

‘Is anthropogenic sea level fingerprint already detectable in the Pacific Ocean?’
H Palanisamy, B Meyssignac,A Cazenave and T Delcroix (2015)

Ans: no.


The term “significant” has a statistical meaning that is often misused, including by myself I suspect.
The issues of “global” SLR are of course important.

However, I can’t for the life of me reproduce the range of SLR at 100 years deduced by Church and White

Richard C (NZ)

Should be:

“Yes, Andy’s onto that [but using the quadratic formula to calculate rather than guessing]”

Apologies, I get a bit garbled at this time of year – 11 hr nightshifts x 6 days a week etc.

Richard C (NZ)


>”I can’t for the life of me reproduce the range of SLR at 100 years deduced by Church and White”

That was, “280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR” 1990 to 2100″.

Their historical quadratic doesn’t give this?

Just intuitively I would have thought the historical projection would fall well short of TAR.


Initial SLR velocity = 1.7
Acceleration (max) = 0.013 + 0.006 = 0.019 mm yr-2

So, after 100 years, SLR increase = 170mm + 0.019 * 10^4 / 2
= 265mm
If I add in the error bounds for initial SLR velocity (0.3mm) I get a max of 295mm

This is a long way short of the 340mm quoted from the paper

If you do the same for the minimums, it looks like they have forgotten the division by two in the acceleration part.

Please tell me I am doing something dumb here.


1.7 ± 0.3 mm yr−1 is the mean for the 20th century. It is not the assumed SLR for 1990, which looks to be between 1.8 and 2.3 mm yr−1. It is not obvious from the paper.
This paper is ten years old now. Dr Church believes that the current acceleration is now around 3 mm y-2. Given the high level of uncertainty, you would think that the Australian government would be keen for the research to continue. Apparently not, because the science is ‘settled’.


You can’t claim that an acceleration, “previously undetected”, of 0.013 mm yr -2 exists and then claim that SLR has jumped from 1.7 to 2.3 mm yr-1

We need to work with a set of logically consistent assumptions, which as Simon correctly points out, isn’t clear from the paper


The raw data for C&W 2006 can be downloaded at this link:


Oops, I meant a current SLR of 3 mm y-1. I see there was an update of the paper in 2011:
which estimates the acceleration at 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year−2. This would put the 21st century sea level rise of sea level at 34.8 cm by my estimation. A long way from 1m but it doesn’t take a big change in the rate of acceleration to blow that estimate away. The research has to continue but it doesn’t look like CSIRO is prepared to do it.

Richard C (NZ)


>”I get a max of 295mm This is a long way short of the 340mm quoted from the paper”

No, it’s within the lower end of the range 280 to 340 mm for TAR that C&W state, viz. “280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR” 1990 to 2100″.


>”Initial SLR velocity = 1.7″ [mm/yr at 1990]


Auckland: 1.29 mm/year 1903 to 2000,
Sydney: 1.54 mm/year 1897 to 2010


But NOAA’s 50 year trends centred nearest 1990 are nowhere near the long running trends and far LESS than for mid 20th century:

50 yr trends
Auckland: 0.52 mm/year centred 1985, 2.18 mm/yr centred 1950
Sydney: 0.78 mm/yr centred 1985, 1.6 mm/yr centred 1950


And obviously, looking at the moving 50 yr trends for Auckland and Sydney (or anywhere else), there IS NO typical 0.019 mm yr-2 accelerarion. There’s BOTH accelerations and decelerations in the data.

The Church and White rationale is hogwash.


>”I get a max of 295mm This is a long way short of the 340mm quoted from the paper”

What I mean is that I can’t re-create the range given in the paper

I will write more on this over the weekend

Richard C (NZ)

Most absurd in the context of the Church and White rationale:

Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends 500-041 Mumbai/Bombay, India
-0.86 mm/yr centred 1970, +2.61 mm/yr centred 1930.

Fremantle almost as silly: 1.36 1985, 0.02 1970, 2.37 1935.

Averaging data like this is nuts. There IS NO “global mean sea level” – rise or fall.

Richard C (NZ)

>”What I mean is that I can’t re-create the range given in the paper”

Ah, thanks. Your 295mm is your upper bound which is only just within the TAR lower bound of 280mm.

But you’re up against “consistent with” Andy. When stated in a climate change context, that means “within cooee”.

Richard C (NZ)

[Simpon] >” I see there was an update of the [C&W2006] paper in 2011: [C&W2011] which estimates the acceleration at 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year−2

Ok, so the previous “global” acceleration has decelerated apparently:

0.013 mm yr-2, C&W2006 (0.019 max),
0.009 mm yr-2, C&W2011

What if in the next update (not by C&W obviously – laid off) a deceleration is reported i.e. negative (-) acceleration ?

And again, even C&W’s updated and minimal “global” acceleration (0.009 mm yr-2) does NOT apply anywhere in the world – not any tide guage anywhere.

Richard C (NZ)

[Simon] >”This [C&W2011] would put the 21st century sea level rise of sea level at 34.8 cm by my estimation.”

Either Simon’s or Andy’s calcs are wrong, Simon is getting greater rise from lessor acceleration (348mm, 0.009 mm yr-2) than Andy is from greater acceleration (265mm, 0.019 mm yr-2)

s(t) = v t + (1/2) a (t^2), where v = linear trend at start, a = acceleration, and s(t) = sea level at time t

For a = 0.009 mm yr-2 (Simon)
After 100 years, SLR increase = 170mm + 1/2 * 0.009 * 100^2 = 215mm (Simon was incorrect with 348)

For a = 0.019 mm yr-2 (Andy)
After 100 years, SLR increase = 170mm + 1/2 * 0.019 * 100^2 = 265mm (Andy was correct)

Simon’s calc was incorrect by 133mm. I hope he is not a math teacher, or a SLR pundit.

Also, C&W2011’s 215mm rise after 100 yrs is somewhat underwhelming. And nowhere near TAR (“280 to 340 mm”).

Richard C (NZ)

>”Simon’s calc [for C&W2011] was incorrect by 133mm”

C&W2011 states:

The linear trend from 1900 to 2009 is 1.7 ± 0.2 mm year−1 and since 1961 is 1.9 ± 0.4 mm year−1.

So for V t = 190 mm and a = 0.009 mm yr-2
After 100 years, SLR increase = 190mm + 1/2 * 0.009 * 100^2 = 235mm

Simon, if he used V t = 190 mm/yr (?), is still incorrect by 113mm.

And again, C&W2011’s 235mm rise after 100 yrs is still underwhelming even accounting for recent shorter term fluctuation in the “global” mean.

Richard C (NZ)

I note that C&W2011 does not make a 100 yr projection with their acceleration reduced from that of C&W2006. Not surprising when it only works out at 235mm (yawn), even with the heroic assumption that the acceleration will continue unabated and starting with the recent rate (1.9 mm/yr) assuming that wont go the other way either. But C&W2011 appear unconvinced that recent rates are anything to go by (page 599 pdf): “In addition to the overall increase in the rate of sea-level rise, there is also considerable variability in the rate. Using the yearly average data, we computed trends for successive 16 year periods (close to the length of the altimeter data set) from 1880 to the present (Fig. 8). We find maxima in the rates of sea-level rise of over 2 mm year-1 in the 1940s and 1970s and nearly 3 mm year-1 in the 1990s (Fig. 8). As in earlier studies (using 10 and 20 year windows; Church and White 2006; Church et al. 2008), the most recent rate of rise over these short 16 year windows is at the upper end of a histogram of trends but is not statistically… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Applied to Auckland”

For chuckles. But obviously inappropriate because the claimed “global” acceleration is NOT evident in the Auckland data (or Sydney data):

Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends 690-002 Auckland II, New Zealand

Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends 680-140 Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia

“There is ……considerable variability in the [global] rate” – C&W2011.

Well yes, there is. Moreso regionally. Aucklands most recent 50 yr trend is 1/4 of what it was in 1950.


These are my calculations based on the Church and White SLR assumptions

That is, an initial SLR velocity of 1.7mm yr-1 +- 0.3 mm yr-1
and an acceleration of 0.013mm yr-2 +- 0.006 yr-2

The numbers quoted in the paper are a range 280-340mm

Usng the formula

SLR(t) = vt + 0.5a*t*t

where t = time in years
v = initial SLR velocity (1.7+-0.3)
a = acceleration ( 0.013mm yr-2 +- 0.006 yr-2 )

We can deduce three outcomes at least

Min: 205mm
Mean: 235mm
Max: 265mm

If I, for sake of argument, double the acceleration parameter, I get the output:

Min: 240mm
Mean: 300mm
Max: 360mm

The paper’s outcome seems to more closely resemble the doubled acceleration parameter. but not exactly

It is nowhere near the first set of calculations

EDIT – just to add that I haven’t taken into account the error bars in initial SLR velocity bit this is a simple calculation

Richard C (NZ)

>”The paper’s outcome seems to more closely resemble the doubled acceleration parameter. but not exactly”

Odd. Possibilities I can think of:

1) C&W2006 neglected the “half” factor, even then a questionable calc result.

2) Peer review didn’t check the application of the formula or the arithmetic i.e. C&W are incorrect but peer review didn’t pick it up.

3) C&W’s calc is different, for some inexplicable reason, than what they have divulged in their paper.

4) Given 3) perhaps, C&W’s result cannot be replicated from the paper’s details by anyone else.

I note C&W2011 did NOT update their C&W2006 100 yr projection using V t = 190 mm and a = 0.009 mm yr-2 (see upthread). This gives 235mm which corresponds EXACTLY with your C&W2006 “Mean: 235mm” Andy.

So changing V t UP and a DOWN just ends up with exactly the same result after 100 years.

Richard C (NZ)

>”345mm. That’s well wihin TAR’s “280 to 340 mm” at the wildest stretch I can muster. And close to Simon’s 348mm i.e. he probably used V t = 3 mm/yr”

If so, Simon\s “estimation” is NOT in accordance with either C&W2006 or C&W2011.

Richard C (NZ)

>”So changing V t UP and a DOWN just ends up with exactly the same result after 100 years.”

In other words, if C&W2011 had redone their projection they would have immediately realised there was something wrong with their C&W2006 calc.

Or (cynic’s explanation) perhaps they did, and that is why the updated projection is missing from C&W2011.

Richard C (NZ)

Should be:

>”345mm. That’s [above] TAR’s “280 to 340 mm” at the wildest stretch I can muster


Out of interest, I calculate the acceleration required to produce 1.0m of SLR in 100 years at 0.166mm yr-2

This is about 13 times the rate quoted in C&W 2006

Richard C (NZ)

‘1959 Paper Shows Most Warming Before 1945 …Arctic Warmed 7.7°C, Sea Level Rose 8 mm/yr’ By P Gosselin on 22. May 2016 […] Sea level rose 8 mm/year between 1930 – 1948 What follows are some of the details of this dramatic early 20th century warming as documented by Princeton geologist Dr. Erling Dorf, a veritable expert on the subject. Notice from the summaries provided below that sea levels were observed to be rising at a rate of about 8 mm/year between 1930 and 1948 (6 inches in 19 years), which is more than double today’s modeled satellite altimetry rate (3.2 mm/year). These early 20th century temperature and CO2 trends beg the question: What were the physical mechanisms that caused this dramatic global-scale warming, since anthropogenic CO2 emissions were both low (~1 GtC/year) and stable during this period? Summary of the 1900 to 1950 warm period as described in Dr. Dorf’s (1959) “CLIMATIC CHANGES OF THE PAST AND PRESENT”. # A 14°F (+7.7°C) warming in the Arctic (North Pole region) between the early 1900s and 1950, with ice-free ports 7 months out of the year rather than the mere 3 months per year… Read more »


Saturday’s editorial in The Press:

Most New Zealanders realise you do not need a peer-review panel to tell you the prognosis for further coastal erosion is not good. Coasts are our most dynamic landscapes and, with future climate warming, increased energy in the atmosphere and oceans will only make the problem worse. Those who want to build properties as close to the sea as they can should bear this in mind.

Richard C (NZ)

‘2015 Updated NOAA Tide Gauge Data Shows No Coastal Sea Level Rise Acceleration’

Guest essay by Larry Hamblin / May 28, 2016

H/t Andy. Synopsis:

The climate alarmist news media have done a terrible job addressing the valid issues and information about sea level rise acceleration to the public. Much of what is written about this topic is inaccurate, misleading and erroneous. The media appear to have gone out of their way to ignore NOAA tide gauge data and instead incorrectly based alarmist sea level rise stories on inappropriate use of global mean sea level measurements and computer estimates and forecasts.

Excellant essay and graphics by Larry Hamblin. Good to see recouse to NOAA’s 5 yr moving 50 yr trend analysis of tide guages from the Tides and Currents website. Immediately shuts down any notion of “acceleration”.


“Christchurch’s coastal cock up: review panel padded with climate deniers”

Richard C (NZ)

Just skimmed over T&T’s report to CCC seeing this wil be topical for a while: REPORT Christchurch City Council = Effects of Sea Level Rise for Christchurch City Tonkin & Taylor Ltd November 2013 1) Just ONE scenario (1m rise by 2115) 2) Except, Table 4-8 Summary of tidal compartment and mouth width changes with sea level rise, has 3 scenarios: 0.2, 0.5, and 1m. 3) Figure 2-1 Projections of future global mean sea level rise and observations of past sea level rise (source: MfE, 2008), shows Port of Auckland mean annual sea level vs global tide guages and satellites. The illusion is created that Auckland conforms to a skewed global average. It certainly does not. The series ends at 2000, there’s been one and a half decades of data since then. The accompanying text states (page 14): Another uncertainty arises from possible differences in mean sea level when comparing the New Zealand region with global averages. Global sea levels have risen over the twentieth century with a global average rise of 1.8 ±0.3 mm/year estimated between 1950 and 2000 (IPCC, 2007). Relative sea level rise estimates in New Zealand appear largely… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Should be:

The rate has been nowhere near [1.8] mm/yr since the mid 20th century. Current 50 yr trend 0.52 mm/yr.


“Just one scenario”:

and this is why we need statistical expertise, but the choice of Kesten Green has ruffled some feathers.
Meanwhile, here is the Sat. Press Editorial that implies that the peer review process is a waste of time:

Richard C (NZ)

>”the choice of Kesten Green has ruffled some feathers”

I can see why:

Dr Kesten Green. Research – Highlights
evidence-based forecasting methods,survey research methods,forecasting decisions; the effects of role, interaction, and conflict on decision making; forecasting for negotiations and strategy in business and warfare,judgmental forecasting methods; the use of analogies in forecasting,forecasting for public policy

# # #

“Evidence-based” and “judgmental” forecasting methods would be anathema in certain circles.

But unverified climate models, incapable of mimicing current climate, primed with outlandish input, generating insane output, violating thermodynamics laws, now that’s reliable forecasting methodology.

Richard C (NZ)

One of my Dip Bus papers was Managerial Economics but not so much on forecasting (that I remember anyway). For background on where Kesten Green is coming from given his tutoring: Kesten Green’s teaching & student supervision – Managerial economics, Forecasting methods Example (not UniSA): Managerial Economics = Methods of Demand forecasting Complex Statistical Methods [among others] —1) Time series analysis or trend method: Under this method, the time series data on the under forecast are used to fit a trend line or curve either graphically or through statistical method of Least Squares. The trend line is worked out by fitting a trend equation to time series data with the aid of an estimation method. The trend equation could take either a linear or any kind of non-linear form. The trend method outlined above often yields a dependable forecast — The advantage in this method is that it does not require the formal knowledge of economic theory and the market, it only needs the time series data. The only limitation in this method is that it assumes that the past is repeated in future. Also, it is an appropriate method for long-run forecasts,… Read more »


Kesten Green is associated with “extreme right wing” groups like Heartland (according to Gareth) plus has written papers with “extreme right wing climate denier” Willie Soon.

He has no experience in climate change, sea level rise or coastal hazards .

However, according to The Press, we don’t need that expertise, because the public no better anyway


“Know better”. I should say

Richard C (NZ)

>”the choice of Kesten Green has ruffled some feathers” This explains the offense: ‘Research on Forecasting for the Manmade Global Warming Alarm’ Testimony to Committee on Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on “Climate Change: Examining the processes used to create science and policy” – March 31, 2011 Professor J. Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania, with Kesten C. Green, University of South Australia, and Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics ! Abstract The validity of the manmade global warming alarm requires the support of scientific forecasts of (1) a substantive long-term rise in global mean temperatures in the absence of regulations, (2) serious net harmful effects due to global warming, and (3) cost-effective regulations that would produce net beneficial effects versus alternatives policies, including doing nothing. Without scientific forecasts for all three aspects of the alarm, there is no scientific basis to enact regulations. In effect, the warming alarm is like a three-legged stool: each leg needs to be strong. Despite repeated appeals to global warming alarmists, we have been unable to find scientific forecasts for any of the three legs. We drew upon scientific (evidence-based) forecasting principles to audit… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

About ForPrin (see pdf link to the Armstrong, Green,and Soon paper above) Foercasting Principles – Evidence-nased Forecasting This Website has been visited 11,583,962 times. Objectives The Forecasting Principles site summarizes all useful knowledge about forecasting so that it can be used by researchers, practitioners, and educators. (Those who might want to challenge this are invited to submit missing information.) This knowledge is provided as principles (guidelines, prescriptions, rules, conditions, action statements, or advice about what to do in given situations). This site describes all evidenced-based principles on forecasting and provides sources to support the principles. The primary source is Principles of Forecasting, a comprehensive summary of forecasting knowledge which involved 40 authors and 123 reviewers. Sponsors The Forecasting Principles site is provided as a public service by the International Institute of Forecasters. A companion site provides information about the Institute, the International Symposium on Forecasting, the International Journal of Forecasting, and Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting. Support for this site was initially provided by the Marketing Department of the Wharton School. Directors was created in 1997 by: Dr J. Scott Armstrong, Professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”It will be interesting to watch CU MSL now that El Nino is giving way to La Nina.”

Here’s an animation of Jason-2 sea level residuals Dec 6 2015 – May 22 2016 courtesy of Bob Tisdale:

comment image

Gives an idea of what is up or down where and what the progression has been up to the end of El Nino.

Richard C (NZ)

>”The illusion is created that Auckland conforms to a skewed global average. It certainly does not. The series ends at 2000, there’s been one and a half decades of data since then” [Figure 2-1 T&T CCC Report] Similar situation with a peer-reviewed paper from 2012 with data to end of 2009: ‘The sea levels are now reducing in the “hotspots of acceleration” of Washington and New York’ Guest essay by Giordano Bruno / May 29, 2016 Hopefully everybody remember Sallenger’s “hot spots” of sea level acceleration along the East Coast of the US. Asbury H. Sallenger Jr, Kara S. Doran & Peter A. Howd, Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America, Nature Climate Change 2, 884–888 (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1597 This was one of the many examples of bad science misinterpreting the sea level oscillations by cherry picking the time window. As 6 more years of data have been collected, let see if the hotspots are now the “hottest on record” or if they have cooled down. […] Which is then the novelty of the last 6 years of data? Since December 2009, the sea levels have declined in both… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Gareth says: May 31, 2016 at 11:47 am “How on earth did Green get on the list? If it was at your suggestion, who pointed you at him? He’s hardly top of any list of statistical experts – especially when there are much more credentialed NZ-based people on the short list!” # # # Err,,, Green’s not just a statistician and he’s rather more than just a managerial economist. Gareth might aquaint himself with Green’s standing in the International Institute of Forecasters for example (Director 2010 to 2014): International Institute of Forecasters And then he might check out Green’s CV: Dr Kesten C. Green – Curriculum Vitae Green may be offensive to Gareth but apparently not elsewhere (from CV page 5): Consulting clients (selected from more than 60) Alaska Department of Natural Resources Department of Defense (The Pentagon) Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s Advanced Systems and Concepts Office (DTRA/ASCO) National Security Agency (NSA) His CV runs to 6 pages. His education was in New Zealand which implies that he is a New Zealander (CV page 6): Education 2000 to 2003: PhD candidate at Victoria Management School, Victoria University of Wellington. Thesis… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”The March 2016 Monthly Data Report (at right) from the long-standing Australian project, the Pacific Sea Level Monitoring Project (PSLMP),” That’s this graph from post: From this report: Looking at the enlarged graphs of 20 years of data from Pacific Island tide guages, the notion that the sea is rising, and dangerously, is just plain silly. >”….over the last 22 years, sea level in the Solomon Islands has risen at an average 4.6 mm per year, for a total rise of 101 mm” The rates are on page 12: Table 1. Updated overall rates of sea level movement based on SEAFRAME data from installation through April 2016. The rate of 4.6 mm/yr is entirely misleading (I call bogus). That rate, and just about every other rate on Table 1, is skewed by the years 1996, 1997, and 1998 i.e. a very short period of the series distorts an uncharacteristic (i.e. unrepresentative) linear trend. In other words, the linear trend does NOT resemble the data – it is statistically inappropriate. The trajectory of the data, in almast every case, is dead FLAT i.e. fluctuating about the mean but not trending up or down.… Read more »


More breathless indignation from Cindy Baxter

I will buy you, Cindy, and Gareth, a drink sometime. It really isn’t that bad

Richard C (NZ)

For the record:

Mathematician and policy analyst Simon Arnold reviewed Tonkin and Taylor’s report and found it was statistically flawed, based on outdated law, and exaggerated the effects of sea-level rise.

Arnold welcomed the council’s review but said it was unnecessary.

He hoped both legal and statistical expertise were included in the review, two disciplines which were lacking from the Tonkin and Taylor report.

“It’s bad enough to be told by an expert that in 100 years time something awful is going to happen to your property.

“It’s even worse to have the council stick [that information] on your LIM so the value of your property is affected today on the basis of an extreme view of what could happen.”

I’m inclined to think there are plenty of people around NZ who, like Arnold, if they were sufficiently motivated could rip T&T’s report to shreds. Arnold has obviously already been there and done that hence his view the review is unnecessary.

I think it best that “statistically flawed, based on outdated law, and exaggerated the effects of sea-level rise” is formalized.

Richard C (NZ)


““If Christchurch City Council wants to rely on sound science around its dealings with climate change, it should stick with proper scientists to review its work….”

Yes of course Cindy, “proper” IPCC-aligned “climate” scientists who wouldn’t dare commit the heresy of an objective review of thier pal’s IPCC “consensus” work which even though explicitly advised against by the providers forms the basis of the only scenario considered in the T&T study for CCCC (1m and RCP8.5) and the responsibility, or irresponsibility, of that approach. No-one else could possibly have that “expertise”.

On the bright side, Baxter provides some much needed attention to alternative approaches:

The Christchurch City Council case has echoes of a similar situation in North Carolina, where, under pressure from coastal property developers, the State Assembly passed a law forbidding local councils from acting on a sea level rise report. A new report has now been written, but gives predictions only 30 years out, not 100 years.

With 5 year reviews too. The more that is known about the North Carolina turnabout (and Eurobodalla Shire Council and Shoalhaven City Counci, NSW) the better.

Richard C (NZ)

RT, just uncovering what is hidden in plain sight. Basically stuff the IPCC, and their adherents, would rather nobody ever read.

Richard C (NZ)

Thomas says: May 31, 2016 at 8:41 pm “If their findings and predictions do not match with what you wish they would report, perhaps first question your own methods of interpretation. And you know very well that forecasting a linear SLR trend as Mr. Jowsey suggests on Facebook is entirely unscientific based on what we know about the trend.” # # # “What we know about the trend” where? And when? Thomas’ link reads: “A high-profile effort to track long-term changes in sea levels was based on analysis of sediment layers at a single location in North Carolina. Published in 2011, that study produced a chart of sea levels that bounced up and down over time, changing with global temperatures, and then ticked sharply upward as industrialization triggered global warming. “North Carolina basically showed us that this could be done,” said Andrew Kemp, a sea level scientist at Tuft’s University. He was a co-author of both Monday’s paper and the paper published in 2011. Monday’s paper combined the data from North Carolina with similar analyses from 23 other locations around the world plus data from tide gauges. A case of high… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

RT, I’ve just sent a comment into spam. Too many links again I think perhaps.


That Scientific American article Thomas link to is just dreadful,

Where are the numbers? How much is this “stunning” acceleration in sea levels they refer to?


The Scoop press release is quite funny if it were not so serious.

You don’t get to do a peer review by questioning the science.

Yes really

Maybe Cindy is tacitly acknowledging that Tonkin and Taylor were told to use 0.4 m and 1.0 m sea level projections by the government

Richard C (NZ)

>”Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends 8658120 Wilmington, North Carolina
what we know about the trend”

Duh, “what we know about the trend” should have been the link-to Wilmington, which is:

Wilmington NC is not a long-running site. The Battery NY, see upthread, begins in the 19th century, although there is missing data at the beginning of the 20th. “The trend” for each series is (with west coast and Auckland comparison):

2.84 mm/yr The Battery NY
2.32 mm/yr Wilmington, NC last 50 years
2.19 mm/yr Wilmington NC
1.94 mm/yr San Francisco
1.29 mm/yr Auckland NZ
0.95 mm/yr Los Angeles
0.52 mm/yr Auckland NZ last 50 years

So “based on what we know about the trend”, as Thomas puts it, what do we know about “the trend” and what is “the trend” ?

Obviously it depends on where, and when.

Richard C (NZ)

Baxter (for Coal Action Network Aotearoa): As part of its district plan, the council commissioned the engineering firm Tonkin Taylor to estimate the impacts of a sea level rise of around 40cm over the next 50 years, and one metre in 100 years. This is wrong. There’s nothing that I can see in the T&T report in respect to “a sea level rise of around 40cm over the next 50 years”. The timeframe is.100 years only and a 1m rise. Only in Table 4-8 (Avon-Heathcote Estuary – Summary of tidal compartment and mouth width changes with sea level rise), is there 3 scenarios: 0.2, 0.5, and 1m. But those are still in respect to a 100 year timespan, nothing about 50 years or 0.4m. If that scenario really is in the report somewhere it’s very well hidden. A pdf search for “50 years” or “0.4” comes up with nothing. The report states (page 12): “The T&T original report was based on the results of the Second Assessment Report (1996), which suggested a sea level rise projection of 0.49 m by the year 2100.” That’s as close as I can get. SLR better get… Read more »


I think that the 0.4 m was part of the CCC policy docs, and I find it hard to keep track of which bit came from where

Whatever, it seems fairly clear that the numbers are directives from high up the food chain, so T&T were probably told what to do.

In any case, the usual suspects are getting in a lather about it all, and now that we have Trump to channel, it is easy to shrug these guys off.

We just need to build a wall.

Too easy

Mike Jowsey

RC – “2) Mike Jowsey’s approach is problematic but “scientific” once the appropriate location, length of location history, and length of location projection (given historical fluctuation) is identified.”

To clarify, I was not the author. I.e., it was not my approach. I simply linked to, without comment, a Youtube presentation by ClimateSanity. If you think that their approach is problematic, that’s fine, but please don’t shoot the courier pigeon.

Link to presentation:

Mike Jowsey
Mike Jowsey

Andy – “We just need to build a wall. ”

Correct. And who’s gonna pay for it?


The Mexicans are!

It is a shame that the activists are getting their grubby paws into the ChCh T&T review. If they end up changing the makeup of the panel to suit their agenda, then it isn’t going to end well.

The council were very careful not to get involved.


We need to be careful what we say folks. Facebook and Twiiter plan to outlaw “hate speech” within 24 hours.

“Hate speech” includes being critical of Islamic Jihad, and one presumes, “climate denial”


Remind me again what “coal action network” has to do with people’s right to build conservatories by the beach in Christchurch?


I deny that I am a denier.

That’s one for Bertrand Russell fans to muse over


Thomas writes at HT

Andy: It is our collective business to know who is trying to influence political outcomes and why and who is paying for it too!

There was I thinking that we were organising a scientific peer review. Gotcha!

Richard C (NZ)

>”If you think that their approach is problematic, that’s fine, but please don’t shoot the courier pigeon.” It was your promotion Mike so I just identified it with “Mike’s approach”. I do think it is sensible to defer to actual data and I’m not shooting you or the author of the graphics in any way. I’m carrying on from what has ensued as a result of your Facebook post mike. This is what Thomas at Hot Topic made of it (replying to Andy): “And you know very well that forecasting a linear SLR trend as Mr. Jowsey suggests on Facebook is entirely unscientific based on what we know about the trend.” Apparently this what the carrier pigeon dellivered according to Thomas, not me. So I’m then asking: what is “the trend” and what do “we know about the trend”. This is what is problematic. I actually agree with Thomas to a degree (although his conception of “the trend” seems to include an “acceleration” for which there is no evidence in tide guages). What trend do you project linearly? Or by any other method? I then state how such a projection, which can only… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Thomas (as per Andy): It is our collective business to know who is trying to influence political outcomes and why and who is paying for it too! This is what a transparent political process is all about. It may not be convenient for those who like to scheme behind closed doors but if you want to play at the table of democracy you must be prepared to show your cards. Amazing! Isn’t this the “conspiracy ideation” that Lewandowsky accuses “deniers” of? And who does Thomas think he is? Stazi? There’s no news of any conflict of interest between the individuals involved in the CCC process that I’m aware of (obviously different points of view but that’s not conflict). If there was it would be out in the open, hardly “behind closed doors”. >”It is our collective business to know who is trying to influence political outcomes and why and who is paying for it too!” OK, here’s one group for starters: Coal Action Network Aotearoa ‘Chch council should drop climate deniers from expert review panel’ May 30, 2016 by Cindy Baxter PRESS RELEASE Coal Action Network Aotearoa is obviously “trying to… Read more »


There were quite a few different viewpoints represented in the reference group, and no one held back in expressing their views.

I put forward some names and was quite clear that some were considered in the “sceptic” category. I also put forward some names from the climate science establishment in NZ

I don’t really want to share this information and don’t think it adds any value.
Some people didn’t get chosen, for various reasons, some were self-expressed conflicts of interest

Richard C (NZ)

>”There were quite a few different viewpoints represented in the reference group, and no one held back in expressing their views.”

The reference group which did not include Thomas or Cindy Baxter of the Coal Action Network Aotearoa i.e. none of their business, as you put it at HT Andy.

All Thomas and Cindy want is IPCC-aligned and motivated individuals who would rubber stamp an IPCC-based report. They don’t seem to understand the concept of an independent “expert review”. This is not a pal review by pal peers that they are used to and operates in climate science (think Climategate).

In other words, outside expertise with transferrable and appropriate skills and scope. This is anathema to Thomas and Cindy.

Richard C (NZ)

>”outside expertise with transferrable and appropriate skills and scope”

I would add that this is the wider community coopting said skills and scope to critique the work of a relatively smaller group with a limited approach.

Something that has been lacking in regard to IPCC assessments and the flow on from them.

Richard C (NZ)

If applied heat qualified specialists wih a working knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics, 2nd Law in particular, turned their attention to the radiative and thermo details of the AGW conjecture a.k.a. man-made climate change, the science would be settled rather quickly. The conjecture would be shredded.


I was quite keen to have a statistician on the peer review panel, and several names were suggested.
Maybe the government, or Facebook, Twitter, or whoever is policing our language and behaviour these days, should produce a list of politically acceptable people to advise us. You know, just in case we accidentally suggest a “denier”


We had better be quick folks, socialist utopia is almost here:

“Landmark California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics”


From the Coal Action Network Facebook page:

Cindy, Cindy Baxter, good on you for speaking publicly on 2 climate deniers being used as peer reviewers for the Christchurch climate model for sea level rise. I found it as an article in the Westport News. We have a climate denier on the West Coast Regional Council, his name is Cnr Birchfield, the one that was prosecuted for his goldmine running dirty and breaching consent condiions.”

Yeah good on you Cindy. We need to flush out all these evil deniers that don’t think catastrophic climate change and sea level rise is 100% certain

Send them to camps, build a wall…

Richard C (NZ)

Climate Science Debate Not Settled; Debate Still Needed Friday, 3 June 2016, 12:43 pm Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition by Bryan Leyland MSc, FIEE(rtd), FIMechE, FIPENZ Energy spokesman for New Zealand Climate Science Coalition […] Sea level rise is reasonably well documented for the last hundred plus years from tide gauge records that show that it has been at a fairly steady rate in the region of 0.14 and 0.17 m per century. This is not unexpected given that we are still coming out of the Little Ice Age. Since the 1970s, sea levels have been measured by satellites that show a rate of rise of 0.32 m per century. No one is quite sure why the disparity exists. Some people believe it is because they are biased by mid-ocean sea level rise which does not affect the situation along shorelines. Neither record shows any sign of a recent and rapid increase in sea levels. Sadly, this does not stop academics who specialise in computer models of the climate advising the Royal Society of New Zealand that sea levels are likely to rise rapidly and reach between 0.3 m and 1… Read more »


This article also appeared in Monday’s print edition of The Press, but without the “denier” bit in the headline


There are some good comments in the Stuff article linked above


I spoke a bit too soon, the usual suspects have picked up their dole cheques and weekly supply of weed and are busy polluting the comments section with the usual lies about oil funding and “deniers”


From the comments, people are one of two types

(1) You “accept the science” of catastrophic sea level rise and need to leave your home
(2) A “denier”

A bit tragic really, when all we want is a fair evaluation of the risks


The strange thing is that there is a fairly vocal group of local residents who believe one metre SLR is “conservative”, yet they are planning to remain by the coast.

I really don’t understand human logic sometimes


“Aestheticism and radicalism must lead us to jettison reason, and to replace it by a desperate hope for political miracles. This irrational attitude which springs from intoxication with dreams of a beautiful world is what I call Romanticism. It may seek its heavenly city in the past or in the future; it may preach ‘back to nature’ or ‘forward to a world of love and beauty’; but its appeal is always to our emotions rather than to reason. Even with the best intentions of making heaven on earth it only succeeds in making it a hell – that hell which man alone prepares for his fellow-men.”

― Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies

Richard C (NZ)

>“Aestheticism and radicalism must lead us to jettison reason, and to replace it by a desperate hope for political miracles”

Just watched a Bernie Sanders speech. Epitomizes the Popper quote to a “T” Andy.

Lots of manic yelling after his every sentence, “we’re all in this together”, and “the struggle continues” apparently.

Mike Jowsey

FUNNY – Bernie Sanders Supporters Interviewed On Street (5:51)… enjoy, boys!

“So you like Bernie Sanders you just don’t know any of his plans.”

Richard C (NZ)

Rather than continue with Bernie Sanders on this sea level thread (an important topic not to be hijacked IMO), I think the ‘Obama’s climate hypocrisy” post is more appropriate.

Mike, Andy, can we take Bernie there?

Richard C (NZ)

‘More Climate Fraud From The United Nations And UCS’

Posted on June 8, 2016 by tonyheller

The United Nations says that the Statue of Liberty is threatened by sea level rise, and that the storm surge from Sandy was unprecedented.

[…see comprehensive debunking…..]

As far as I can tell, The UN and Union of Concerned Scientists never tell the truth about anything. They are total frauds, and as climate alarmists love to say – fraud is not protected by the first amendment.

Richard C (NZ)

For the record (already somewhere upthread I think but here it is again):

New Zealand Parliament – 12. Climate Change—Sea Level Rise

Order Paper and questions – Questions for oral answer
[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:10374. Text is subject to correction.]

12. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does she agree with the statement made by GNS Senior Scientist Nancy Bertler that sea-level rise of 30cm in 30 years is “incredibly certain”, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s analysis that a 30cm rise would result in 1 in 100-year high water levels in Wellington happening every year?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): In part, yes, but I would point out that even the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the scientist mentioned in the question disagree.


# # #

I looked this up for “the statement made by GNS Senior Scientist Nancy Bertler” that sea-level rise of 30cm in 30 years is “incredibly certain”.

Can’t yet commit the name Nancy Bertler to memory. Maybe this will help.


This is my response to Thomas “gaga land” comment about me at HT ——- Thomas, The local NZ sea level rise trend via tide gauge records is not accelerating (Hannah et al, Otago, MfE, Tonkin and Taylor) The claim that SLR has accelerated to 3.2 mm/year is spurious because you are comparing satellite data with tide gauge data. Neither individually demonstrates acceleration Church and White have published two papers, to my knowledge, that claim a statistically significant acceleration on global sea levels. (C&W 2006 and C&W 2011) C&W 2006 claims that a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm yr−2. This acceleration is an important confirmation of climate change simulations which show an acceleration not previously observed. If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR. I have calculated the numbers based on their claims and can’t match the TAR values they suggest. Maybe someone can check for me. Then, later C&W 2011 claim a statistically significant acceleration of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year−2 Note that this is less than the 2006 number.… Read more »


My comment hasn’t been published, this was Thomas original remark

Andy, let’s face it, you are either clueless in Gaga Land or you are a deliberate misinformer. The latter is the only reasonable conclusion any right minded person can come to when considering your record of “opinions” held over the years…..

Maybe Herr Thomas would like to inform the University of Otago, MfE, and Tonkin and Taylor that they are “deliberate misinformers” too.


That’s just the “global average illusion”.

Yes that is correct. However, C&W 2011 gets quoted a lot in local publications to “prove” that SLR is accelerating, and they often paste the 3.2mm figure into the same powerpoint.

I’m not sure if it is deliberate fraud or just stupidity

Richard C (NZ)

>”Might be a bit too inconvenient for Gareth, but lets give it a little time. If still not up……”

The comment is up:

andyS says: June 9, 2016 at 7:08 pm

No response from Thomas or anyone else yet (Macro’s notwithstanding or in respect to the more recent comment).

Andy, suggest you provide a sample of NZ TG data at HT:





From PSMSL: Obtaining Tide Gauge Data

Ask them what evidence is there of an “acceleration” in NZ TG data.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Ask them [HT] what evidence is there of an “acceleration” in NZ TG data.”

If they scoff at the short-term samples, remind them that the IPCC’s SLR baseline is the average of 1980 – 1999 nominally centred on 1990.

There are other TGs of course, including long running.

Richard C (NZ)

If they demand long running TGs, be happy to oblige with these Andy:

Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends 690-002 Auckland II, New Zealand

Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends 680-140 Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia


“Evidence doesn’t support rapid sea level rise”

NBR Friday 10th June, archived:

Richard C (NZ)

‘Taming the Greenland Melting Global Warming Hype’ By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger June 10, 2016 […] Another big problem with all the new hype is that history shows the current goings-on in Greenland to be irrelevant, because humans just can’t make it warm enough up there to melt all that much ice. For example, in 2013, Dorthe Dahl-Jensen and her colleagues published a paper in Nature detailing the history of the ice in Northwest Greenland during the beginning of the last interglacial, which included a 6,000 year period in which her ice core data showed averaged a whopping 6⁰C warmer in summer than the 20th century average. Greenland only lost around 30% of its ice with a heat load of (6 X 6000) 36,000 degree-summers. The best humans could ever hope to do with greenhouse gases is—very liberally—about 5 degrees for 500 summers, or (5 X 500) 2,500 degree-summers. In other words, the best we can do is 500/6000 times 30%, or a 2.5% of the ice, resulting in a grand total of seven inches of sea level rise over 500 years. That’s pretty much the death of the… Read more »


I don’t expect any replies to my comment. Anyone who uses rational evidence based science is a “denier”

They have started quoting the Book of Genesis now. Oh dear

Post Navigation