In German. Via Google translator.

Case studies from around the world show: No acceleration of sea level rise during the last 30 years

It also mentions the NZ. research of John Hannah and Robert Bell

http://translate.google.co.nz/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://diekaltesonne.de/%3Fp%3D4429&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://diekaltesonne.de/%253Fp%253D4429%2Btranslate%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D783%26prmd%3Dimvns&sa=X&ei=6DsCUPrECOuXiQfepoyvCA&ved=0CDEQ7gEwAA

The forlorn image of the sunken clubhouse would have delighted Al Gore and his Climate “Reality” project

I spent a day at the estuary in May 2011 and saw some of that first hand. The yacht club was particularly poignant sitting out on its own.

The Pleasant Point yacht club was completely swamped and had to be demolished.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington-central/7268184/Wellington-sea-level-rising-fastest-in-NZ

I like this statement somehow linking seismic activity with ‘climate change?’

“Like land, the sea is not flat and has its own topography, which explains why Wellington could record a bigger rise than ports at Auckland, Dunedin and Christchurch. If the Wellington Fault ruptured, forecasts show Lower Hutt and Petone could subside by up to 1m.”

IMHO there is a greater chance of the big earthquake occuring than the big sea level rise!

If anyone bothers to do the maths provided, i.e. 2mm per year over a hundred years for the last century = 200mm, then a rise of 1500mm in a similar time frame is just sensational! Oh that’s right, silly me. Sensationalism sells newspapers. There can’t have been much happening on the news front for them to put this on the front page.

Cheers

Coops

Why “unfortunate” ?

In an area and era where people have ready access to information (the internet era), those that CHOOSE to live in a low lying area near the coast are taking a risk in any event – the lower and closer to the sea the greater the risk i.e. you choose your own fortune by living there if you know the possibilities.

All through history, groups of people have realized that they have chosen a location to live that was becoming untenable but they were not fortunate in having the information that we have so their choice of location was made from different criteria in ignorance of possibilities. Case in point: Doggerland – a land that was slowly submerged by water between 18,000 BC and 5,500 BC – stretched from Northern Scotland across to Denmark and down the English Channel as far as the Channel Islands.

It was home to tens of thousands of people.

“We have now been able to model its flora and fauna, build up a picture of the ancient people that lived there and begin to understand some of the dramatic events that subsequently changed the land, including the sea rising and a devastating tsunami.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/doggerland-discovered-sunken-country-off-the-coast-1112511

But even with the information that we have there’s still unexpected risk in choice of location – ask the people of Christchurch about that.

And remember that the extreme SLR scenario is computer generated. That same US eastern seaboard is at risk (supposedly) from an even greater computer generated scenario – a Canary Islands ‘mega-tsunami’ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040815234801.htm

“The mega-tsunami scenario currently being aired in the media is a hypothetical ‘worst case’, and is largely based upon speculative computer models of landslide motion and tsunami generation. In contrast, our work involves study of actual landslide deposits.”

Civil engineers are among the most practical people I have met. When they go to construct a work that might be affected by floods or tides, they look up the weather statistics for the area as far back as they exist. They reason that if their work would have survived past events, they are highly likely to survive future ones.

So far engineers have been tremendously successful. They don’t build to imagined events and the moment something unprecedented occurs, engineers change their plans for future structures.

So far no climate events are occurring outside natural variability, so there’s no reason to change. After 30 years of crying wolf, all the CAGW predictions have failed (not that they’ve stopped making them). Why should we build according to an unproven theory that we’re dangerously changing the climate?

Do you know how heat energy from the atmosphere can heat the ocean? Because, impossible as it seems, that’s what the CAGW theory depends on — along with loopy computer models that understand no more about the climate than we do.

About the ocean: is it possible to heat a bath of cold water by circulating warm air around the room? That’s what some “scientists” believe happens to the oceans. I’d like someone to prove it – you know, do some real science. Meteorologists know that the ocean determines the air temperature, not the other way around. Cheers.

Therefore, leave the infrastructure alone and get on with battling economic woes to raise unfortunate people out of poverty, whereupon they will be much better resourced, educated and informed to deal with any real threats.