Comments on: Kiribati sinking beneath waves again

By: Mike Hutcheson

Mike Hutcheson — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:11:02 +0000

All the BS about carbon dioxide gives me the willies!! We NEED CO2 as much as we need oxygen. Without CO2, we don’t get oxygen, right??? How do we get oxygen? From TREES. Trees give us oxygen and eat carbon dioxide. What happens when greedy nations and stupid governments allow natural rainforests to be decimated? No trees, means no oxygen. Have a Google look at the Amazon Basin rainforest and the Sumatra and Java rainforests, or what’s left of them and only when the smoke has been blown away from all the fires. Bare earth is what is left.

I’m stating this as simply as I can for the Dummies! Can we forward this to Julia Gillard and Bob Brown???

By: Mike Hutcheson

Mike Hutcheson — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:03:42 +0000

Kiribati was the scene of one of the most devastating battles of the Pacific war in WW2. It was bombarded by aircraft and battleships for days. Being a coral atoll it may even be possible that the base on which it rests has been damaged and the islands ARE in fact sinking. Having a fragile structure being pounded by thousands of tonnes of bombs, it must be considered a possible cause. ….at least it has more plausibility than Walkers theory, me thinks!!!!

By: Mike Hutcheson

Mike Hutcheson — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 12:42:29 +0000

Bryan Walker is a science (fiction) writer!!! It would be obvious to most level headed people, that if the sea WAS rising, then it would have a uniform effect on all the islands in the pacific region, many countries, like NZ and Aus and for that matter, everywhere else on the planet. Only a sci fi write could dream up a “fact” that the sea is rising in the Kiribati Region ONLY!! I bet he believes Godzilla lives too!!

Unfortunately, his misguided ramblings in newsprint, DO influence some peoples judgement, including Julia Gillard and crew, who then try and make money out of the situation.

Richard, I like your report very much and recommend it be published in as many areas of the media as possible.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:00:44 +0000

Your question, Will, is so obvious, yet it so often goes unasked.

However, in the case of Kiribati, it’s answered with “nothing much is happening.” If you click on the two graphs near the end of the article you’ll see that the sea levels recorded for Kiribati have fluctuated about 200mm up and down, but the trend is very low, perhaps 2mm per year, or 200mm per century. The coral will easily keep up with that rate of rise. As with Tuvalu, if salt water encroachment is a problem, it’s being caused by local man-made interference, such as over-enthusiastic earth-moving or reef blasting. Whether there’s a tectonic influence I don’t know, but the magnitude of sea level rise is clearly observed.

By: WillS (AU)

WillS (AU) — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:14:59 +0000

A mention of satellite altimetry poses the question as to whether Kiribati is actually sinking or the sea is rising.
I have seen no data on the tectonic movement of Kiribati and how this affects the problem with encroaching sea water.
Will

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:26:39 +0000

Another “IPCC nature trick” was the Hong Kong “corrective factor” (not sure if this has been verified anywhere)

Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’

“One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC’s favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a “corrective factor” of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they “needed to show a trend”. ”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

By: val majkus

val majkus — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:13:26 +0000

I’m sure this has been mentioned before because the story’s been around for a while but for those who may not have seen it:
IPCC Sea Level Nature Trick
by Steve Goddard http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/behind-the-science/8188-ipcc-sea-level-nature-trick?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climatechangefraud%2FnkcO+%28Climate+Change+Dispatch+news%29
quoting a couple of paras:
The rise in global mean sea level is accompanied by considerable decadal variability. For the period 1993 to 2003, the rate of sea level rise is estimated from observations with satellite altimetry as 3.1 � 0.7 mm yr�1, signi?cantly higher than the average rate. The tide gauge record indicates that similar large rates have occurred in previous 10-year periods since 1950. It is unknown whether the higher rate in 1993 to 2003 is due to decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend.

That last sentence is a classic. They avoided the obvious answer that the higher rate from 1993-2003 was due to using a different methodology to generate the numbers. The older measurements are from tide gauges, and the newer ones are from satellite altimetry.

They failed to mention that tide gauges don�t agree with the satellite altimetry. They failed to mention that we don�t see much if any increase in rates from tide gauge data. They failed to provide any justification for the switch. They failed to provide any evidence that tide gauges are less reliable now than they were in the last century. They failed to do any verification of the accuracy of altimetry measurements.

This is just another IPCC nature trick � switching measurement systems to create an increase where there is none.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:19:42 +0000

And on a humourous note from the same comments thread.

AGreenup

29 November 2010 10:46PM

Recent months have seen a significant reduction in Monbiot. If present trends continue then this winter could be the first ever completely free of Monbiot.

Expectations that temperatures would rise, leading to an increase in Monbiot, appear to have been unfounded.

Publishers report an impending ‘tipping point’ with more unsold books than ever before going to the tip.

————————————————————————————————————————-
Also (while I’m at it)

A man who had collided with a cow while driving his car answered “Horn” to Norwich Union Insurances question “What warning did you give?”

And answered “Moo” to the question “What warning did the other party give?”.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:08:36 +0000

Saw this in comments below the Guardian article “Cameron refuses to attend UN climate change talks”

taxipayer

29 November 2010 10:10PM

Vanuatu:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/wizard.php?dlon=167&dlat=16&map=t&fit=n&smooth=n&days=60

Samoa:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/wizard.php?dlon=172&dlat=13&map=t&fit=n&smooth=n&days=60

Kiribati
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/wizard.php?dlon=173&dlat=1&map=t&fit=n&smooth=n&days=60

and Nauru:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/wizard.php?dlon=166&dlat=0&map=t&fit=n&smooth=n&days=60

How inconvenient.

The world (in millimetres):

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/index.php

Meanwhile, China is racing to build nuclear/gas/coal fired power stations so it can produce all the green stuff we have to swallow – it’s the law – and polluting (as in real pollution not production of the gas that feeds us all) without regulation to constrain profits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/8578644

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:29:55 +0000

Alternative SSL plots for Tarawa, Kiribati, 1° Lat and 172° Lon from University of Colorado Interactive sea level wizard.

“Click for a table of values” (top plot) gives Surface height anomaly data (cm)

1992.9595 – 2010.5786

2009.5741 12.58 [End of June 125.8mm above 1993-1999 mean]
2009.6013 16.58
2009.6284 12.91
2009.6555 13.34
2009.6827 11.75
2009.7098 17.10
2009.7371 17.40
2009.7642 20.63
2009.7913 14.81
2009.8185 19.51
2009.8456 17.92
2009.8728 12.27
2009.8999 9.51
2009.9270 18.11
2009.9542 19.89
2009.9813 12.04
2010.0084 6.32
2010.0356 5.84
2010.0627 10.91
2010.0900 8.86
2010.1171 7.48
2010.1442 6.46
2010.1714 -1.14
2010.1985 -0.06
2010.2257 -2.45
2010.2528 -6.10
2010.2799 -2.81
2010.3071 -3.82
2010.3342 -3.99
2010.3615 -6.16
2010.3885 -7.33
2010.4156 -7.17
2010.4429 -6.43
2010.4700 -5.45
2010.4972 -5.14
2010.5243 -3.21
2010.5514 -1.08
2010.5786 -7.16 [End of June 71.6mm below 1993-1999 mean]

Documentation

MEAN SEA SURFACE – 1993-1999 (7 years)