NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer could be more informative in her sea level paper

This Govt chart of changes in sea level over the last 140,000 years – from NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer article “CSE Report Sea Level Rise Benchmarks” (see my previous post) – could easily have been more informative by showing that sea levels ~6,000 years BP were one to two metres higher than today (marked by my red freehand line “HO” for Holocene Optimum). Their chart has no problems showing detailed oscillations at approx 55,000 BP where I have marked a “B”.

The higher sea levels around the Holocene Optimum are well known but it so happens that research on the Australian East Coast by scientists at James Cook University published in 2008 firms up the timing and magnitude of these changes.
Usage of cheapest price on tadalafil should be deemed only with the most experienced institutions in Florida. In obtaining the optimum and expected tadalafil online no prescription result, self discipline is an crucial factor. If you viagra online in uk check have problems with your sex life or married life. online purchase viagra The corrective information about your health parameters can prevent the damage to our heart functions.
We realize here that Govt scientists prefer the simplistic IPCC story of constantly rising sea levels and that taxpayers should not be confused with the information that sea levels have in fact fallen over the last ~6,000 years.

New South Wales Govt takes more rational view of future sea level rise

The NSW Government today announced significant changes to the way the NSW coast will be managed, giving more freedom to landowners to protect their properties from erosion and dropping Labor’s onerous statewide sea level rise planning benchmarks.

Special Minister of State, Chris Hartcher said the changes mean councils will have the freedom to consider local conditions when determining future hazards.

The first stage of the NSW Government’s comprehensive coastal reforms will:

[1] Make it easier for coastal landholders to install temporary works to reduce the impacts of erosion on their properties;
[2] Remove the compulsory application of sea level rise benchmarks;
[3] Deliver clarity to councils on the preparation of section 149 notices by focusing on current known hazards; and
[4] Support local councils by providing information and expert advice on sea level rise relevant to their local area.

Mr Hartcher said the changes strike the right balance between protecting property and managing the State’s vast coastline.

The NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer has identified uncertainty in the projected rate of future sea level rise given that the scientific knowledge in the field was continually evolving.

I am amazed that in all this blather and taxpayer spending about this or that model of future sea level rise – nobody is telling us – what is the evidence from coastal survey marks of the last 150 years ? Funny that.
There must be hundreds of survey marks near the coast from which evidence could be assembled to demonstrate the sea level rise of the last 150 years.

Example of how mineral exploration is strangled by Green & Red Tape

Just saw this news item – “A long wait for new Tanami tenements” – in fact a six year wait.
Of course the legal and quasi-legal “leasing” costs would have been mounting all of that time. Crazy way to run a country, to handicap investors who want to spend their hard earned on mostly low impact activities to add to the National store of knowledge about our mineral resources. Minerals which if mined will help keep this country in a manner it has become used to. In this case the company Northern Minerals NTU has a market capitalization of $64Mn so can stand the cost of a wait like this. Many exploration companies are a tenth the size or less.

Qantas makes announcements about buying carbon credits

I noticed Andrew Bolt picked up this story from July – and the questioning article from the Australian Farm Institute. My curiosity was raised by another ABC article from ABC Rural in the NT – “Henbury carbon credits clear for take-off”. Where against the tone of the headline – the article states – “… The rangelands methodology that the Henbury Conservation Project depends upon has been submitted but is yet to be finalised, so Mrs Pearse says the first sale to Qantas is still months off. “We have to wait for the domestic offset integrity committee to have a good look at that methodology and then that will go out to public consultation for three months. “So we’re not expecting an approved methodology any time soon, it’s still a long path.”
This all sounds as though what QANTAS announced as a done deal – is still a work in progress.
And of course at the end of 2010 QANTAS announced “…New Carbon Offset Provider”, a private Euroland company Climate Friendly owned by South Pole Carbon – so what has happened that CF and SPC can not supply what QANTAS requires.

NIWA has big win in the New Zealand Supreme Court

The NIWA vs NZCET court result will be picked apart on more notable blogs than this – however I am curious about a few things in the 49 page “Judgement of Venning J”. My interest is mainly on the Clauses on the subject of the station data. To start though I want to look at Clause 176 – I will be interested to hear what readers think.
My press release from 2006 is still online here.
Here is Clause 176 from the Judgement –

I can not see that Judge Vennings paraphrasing of what Dr Wratt said about contrasting winds before and after 1945 – can have any bearing on the point in my press release which was that two IPCC compliant expert groups (Jones/CRU and NIWA) – both with access to the same database of station data – disagreed greatly about the long term New Zealand temperature trend – over whatever exact period chosen. I was pointing out how the science is not settled.
Wind affects equally the station data used by CRU & NIWA and is not a cause of the CRU – NIWA long-term trend divergence – as Venning J seems to conclude Dr Wratt has shown.

Big bad corn.

I was sent this link – interesting collection of statistics on corn An example is the designing of transgenic plants to grow under specific environmental conditions or in the presence of any of the following: -severe angina which vardenafil price mouthsofthesouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/MOTS11.23.19-LEE.pdf is unresponsive to medical therapy -marked ST depression of exercise ECG -left main stem stenosis -severe triple vessel disease -angina with left ventricle dysfunction. However this is viagra effects women another thing that these methods can be well combined with conventional medical approaches. If medications have not been flourishing, your physician may recommend the best ways to keep the treatment safe discount viagra buy generic levitra report for you. Lower libido is a common sexual trouble in men and that to with rapid effects. in the USA.
Our farmers eyes would water at the extent of US farm subsidies.

Is there any backflip this Govt will not perform ?

This news today “Govt scraps plans to shut down dirty power stations”.

How do the Greens wake up in the morning – look at themselves in the mirror – and stay in coalition with Labor ? With the national Green vote ebbing away from double figures – they need to do something before the future double dissolution near wipes them out.

Canberra records coldest September night in 74 years – since 1939

Quite a morning for the 1st of September – and the 2nd is also frosty with the 30 minute data from the Airport shows a minus 4.8 at 6am.
Even Toytown had a chilly morning Saturday.
But a couple of things the main stream media do not rush to tell you.
Australian mean temperature has been cool for at least a year.

And ditto Australian nights – and note that this map shows clearly the error in BoM gridded data that I jokingly named “national night-time hotspot”.

Just Google – national night-time hotspot – to find my June 2011 article birthing the NNTHS and others of mine commenting on the BoM gross error.
And of course the data from Sydney region and Canberra Airport is in the face of the ever expanding urban heat island which is inexorably driving up temperatures.

Cubbie Station should never have been so big – let alone sold overseas

This latest news is talking about something that should never have come into existence – and now it has been sold to overseas interests. Only in Australia could this shambles be permitted.

I wrote on Cubbie back in 2006 I think it was – just never thought it was in the National interest and on all I have read have to conclude it was birthed on a bureaucracy that was too often asleep or turning a blind eye. But hey that’s Queensland.
From 2007 – “Queensland Govt., stunning hypocrisy over water”
From 2009 – “What has killed the cotton giant – Cubbie Station ?”

Do readers have any experience of “Web of Trust”

I have been told that Web of Trust (WoT) says that my site “…was of low repute!”
Apparently they also warn of Climate Change Dispatch.
Does anybody have any information or opinion on WoT who are based in Finland.
It would not surprise me if Greens on the internet have been putting in bad reports about my site to various internet busybody sites – spam fighters etc.
WoT is new to me – I am interested to hear what readers can tell me.

Primarily exposing faulty methodologies behind global temperature trend compilations