Aussie councils reject sea level hysteria

Fort Denison (© Andy Mitchell, Wikimedia)

Fort Denison (© Andy Mitchell, Wikimedia)

Fort Denison, an old penal colony in the middle of Sydney Harbour, has one of the oldest tide gauges around, having been located there for 128 years. During this period, the sea level has risen just 6.5 cm, or about two and a half inches.

Despite these trivial sea level rise over the past century and a bit, moonbat councils on the east coast of Australia are still tying up waterfront properties in miles of green tape, justified by predictions of massive sea level rises by climate alarmists, and property values have plummeted as a result:

In mid-2010, the Eurobodalla council, south of Shoalhaven, introduced a unique interim sea level rise policy that shackled more than a quarter of all properties in the shire to restrictive development controls. Predictably, there was an immediate shire-wide decline in property values.

In three years, individual Eurobodalla properties lost about $40,000 in value. With 22,000 properties in the shire, this represents a capital loss of $880m at a rate of $293m a year. This steady loss of rateable value means householders will face higher rate increases.

If similar policies were implemented along the entire east coast there would be annual property capital losses of billions of dollars.

So it is not surprising that NSW and Queensland governments are reconsidering their coastal management policies.

Queensland Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney recently notified Moreton Bay Regional Council of his intention to direct it to amend its draft planning scheme “to remove any assumption about a theoretical projected sea level rise due to climate change from all and any provisions of the scheme”. Seeney said his intention was to use a statewide coastal mapping scheme “that will remove the ‘one size fits all’ approach that incorporates a mandatory 0.8m addition to historical data”.

At last, a responsible government has recognised that global average sea-level change is no more relevant to coastal management than average global temperatures are to the design of residential heating and cooling systems — local weather and local sea-level change is what matters. (source)

A bit of Aussie climate sanity for once.


  1. Don’t forget watson`s paper for the CSIRO Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia?
    The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000. Short period trends of acceleration in mean sea level after 1990 are evident at each site, although these are not abnormal or higher than other short-term rates measured throughout the historical record.”…”
    Tamino” had a brain meltdown and then, after torturing the data/”smoothing”, found, much to everyone`s surprise..the opposite conclusion.
    Who would have thought.. 🙂

  2. The only problem with all the predictions about the level of the World Ocean rising is that, the World Ocean is refusing to rise up in support of the predictions, the other problem is that ice is frozen fresh water and frozen fresh water only covers about 5% of this planet above sea level and frozen water under the level of the World Ocean does not count as the World Ocean will fall a small amount if that ice melts,so if the ice there is enough to get the World Ocean to rise and significant amount then it must be piled up very high, I cubic kilometer of water as ice, should it melt, would make 1000 square kilometers rise by one meter, so when you use this simple math then somewhere on the planet, above the level of the sea, then there must be over 500,000 cubic kilometers of ice, piled up and just waiting to melt, strange that no one can find that amount of ice, all these morons who talk about the rise of the World Ocean in tens of meters, this includes you Peter Garrett or Mr. 7 Meters, the ice does not exist to allow this amount of rise in the World Ocean, it is just not there. N

  3. Ivan Wainwright says:

    A bit unkind of you, Ed, in not acknowledging Bob Carter as the source of much of the material in this post. See Bob’s letter to The Australian of this morning (12 December).

  4. The post is correct: the risk the world ocean will rise much has been grossly even absurdly exaggerated.

    But the comment by N is not borne out by the data. During the Eemian (the interglacial before this one about 100,000 or so years ago) sea level was about 9 meters higher than now, presumably because the Earth was warmer than now and there was then enough water.

    About 5,000 years ago sea level was two to three meters higher than today. The warm period lasted over 1000 years and is now called the Holocene Climate Optimum or the Hypsithermal. So there was enough ice prior to that period to produce a lot of seawater.

    About 400,000 years agbo during marine isotope stage 11 (MIS11) sea level rose about 20 meters. (66 feet).

    So if the glacial ice melts, sea level will rise quite a lot. There is enough ice to do the job.

    But it would be foolish to worry about this risk. For anyone alive today and for their great grandchildren yet to be born the risk is lower than the risk of being hit by lightning or by an airline toilet falling from the sky.

    Even at the rate of warming expected by the most alarming promoters of climate doom, it will take hundreds of years to achieve more than a modest rise in sea level.

    But the alarmist view of global temperature rise is probably wrong by a big factor because much is missing from the climate models, mostly other physical factors that have the opposite effect on warming and work in the direction of global cooling.

    And believe it or not, a cooling world would be and will be altogether a more dangerous place to be than a warming world.

  5. This is all the good work of Prof. Bob Carter who works tirelessly to spread the scientific facts on climate change. And it is due to his expertise that these councils have rejected the politically driven reports based on computer models from the IPCC.

  6. I am not a mathematician but all the talk of massive rises in the world ocean made me wonder “How much water would be needed to get a 1 meter rise?” and “Where was all the water going to come from” so I decided to have a go and try to work out how much water would be needed to allow the World Ocean to rise by just 1 meter, there are two variables that I cannot solve, 1 is that the world is curved so as you go up then you need more water for the next meter than you needed for the preceding meter and this is an exponential issue as it gets worse the higher you go, the other is that even though there are many areas where you could get a large rise without any inland flooding, like the ‘White Cliffs of Dover’ then there are also many areas where there would be massive inland flooding, like Holland, so I had to make two assumptions to kill off two variable issues that I cannot solve, so assuming that the world is flat, which it’s not, and that there would be no inland flooding, and there will be massive inland flooding then using them then I got an answer. For the World Ocean to rise just 1 meter then the water needed would be 361,000 cubic kilometers, it would be more than that as those two things that I counted as being constant are not, I was a bit surprised to see that that much water would also be a cube of water with all of its sides 72 kilometers, so I looked at it again, as a cube of water, the atmosphere of this planet earth is about 11 kilometers thick so that cube of water would stick up into space 61 kilometers above the atmosphere, I also realized that if you could discount gravity and stack all of those 361,000 cubic kilometers of water one on top of the other then there would be enough water to go to the moon by submarine. For all those idiots who say that the sea will rise more, one. Peter Garrett, said ‘seven meters’ and other have said far larger figures then my math still works, as long as the two variables are ignored that is, so in a case where the sea may rise 7 meters then the water needed would be 2,527,000 cubic kilometers of water and in one mass then that would be a cube of water with the side over 134 kilometers, those two variables that I cannot deal with are exponential, that is, the higher you go the greater they get. As you go up just 10cm then the multiplying factor would not be that great, in fact at 10cm it would not be much above zero but by the time that you got to 5 meters it would be over 10%, I can’t say how much as I cannot work it out, by the time you got up to 7 meters it may be over 15% or an additional 380,000 cubic kilometers of water to achieve the seven meter rise.

    The thing is that for the World Ocean to rise any significant amount then it would need all the frozen fresh water to melt, and even though the fear mongers keep saying this is happening, its not, JP Lovecraft was the flag bearer of the CAGW movement, he coined the word Gaia, he said that mankind would only be able to breed in those areas of the warm arctic and Antarctic, the rest of us would be dead, he said that and many other scaremongering things but close to the end of his life then he recanted it all, he said that ‘enough time had passed had passed for the models to be proved correct, and that all that the passing of time had proved was that all the models were not correct’ me I think that he did not want to die with his horses still hitched to this faulty wagon. I would be happy for any real mathematician to solve this complex problem and say exactly, ‘How much water is needed for a rise of 1 meter and up to the limit of the BS that gets said, and ‘where all the water is going to come from’ all I wanted to do was to point out that all the talk about rises of 20 meters is such BS, as the water does not exist to do that, me I think that if all the ice did melt then you would be lucky to get a 1 meter rise, no one would be more thrilled than me if this math was worked out better than I can do it. N

    • Very rough calculation: the volume of a 1 metre thick shell covering the earth at the surface is 510 trillion cubic metres, so assuming 70% of the earth’s surface covered by water, that is approximately 360 trillion cubic metres. Method is to subtract the volume of a sphere radius 6,371,000 metres from the volume of a sphere radius 6,371,001 metres, and then take 70%.

      • Simon your method makes me think that ,my 361,000 cubic kilometers for a 1 meter rise is correct, the thing that I did want to point out is that the water needed to get a significant rise is huge. bigger than anyone can comprehend, water that is not piled up anywhere on the 5% of the Earths land mass that has frozen water on it that is also above the level of the World Ocean. I personally think that top get a 1 meter rise and include the fact that there would be massive inland flooding then you may well need 450,000 cubic kilometers of water to be dumped into the World Ocean. I told all this to one Green idiot and he blurted how that I was a fool, he said that icebergs have 90% of their mass under the level of the Ocean, it was all I could do to not laugh as I told this idiot that the World Ocean would in fact drop a small amount if the ice under the water did melt, I told him to try the ice tray test in his fridge, to fill it to the brink and then freeze it, that it would expand out and up from the tray, ice takes up more space than the same given amount of water. N

  7. Reposted and commented

    Since 1880, sea levels have been rising at 0.65mm/yr, with absolutely no evidence of acceleration. The nonsensical assumption of 0.8 metre would, at the current rate, take 1230 years to materialise. By which time, the next Little Ice Age would have come and gone, and we would probably be in the middle of the next one.

  8. Please be cautious in praising all of these local councils as the motion which Eurobodalla Shire Council passed, in part, approved of:
     RCP6.0 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report 5 (2012)
     Levels assessed as having a 15% chance of being exceeded.

    This is still 3 to 6 times the current rate of sea level rise, but less than the staff’s proposal of using RPC8.5. There a still many in all levels of government that are scared by the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers predictions, while the so-called climate experts still call them ‘scenarios.’ The old line of exaggerating to get headlines and more money.

  9. Night-Gaunt49 says:

    To have a massive rise in sea level you have to have a massive melting of terrestrial ice first. Something that has not yet happened.

    • That’s all true, me I would like to have some World Class mathematician work out how much ice, by volume, there is above sea level. N

%d bloggers like this: