Csteele, all that you said is in the Coastal Conference site page.

As you are aware I took the last paragraph of that report and simply quoted it.

The report gives reasons for why the figures should be higher than the recordings at Fort Denison…all suppositions….then they close with the facts:

“The Fort Denison data clearly shows a period of reduced sea level rise over the period
1986-2007 of 0.4 mm/year as opposed to 0.9 mm/year over the length of the dataset.

"As you are aware I took the last paragraph of that report and simply quoted it."

But you now seem to be forgetting, sonogloin, that you also editorialised:

"Sea levels in Sydney harbour went down for a ten year stretch…..DOWN….."

That is the way sea level has been behaving some places the sea level is up and some are down. But overall the sea level is rising.
Pacific Islands are feeling the effects now.

David Leigh>> It is interesting to note that, despite the current minimal readings on sea-level rise, Greenland's land bound ice sheet had a 98 percent melting spree earlier this year. It took just 48 hours to turn ice, kilometres thick, into mush. In the Southern Hemisphere, the West Antarctic ice sheet, which is fractured and a giant section is poised to slip into the sea<<

David, most people are simple souls, they want three meals a day and a modicum of happiness. Then there are those such as ourselves (pro or con CAGW) that think about tomorrow.

With the ice sheets melting, glaciers reverting, and low lying islands swamping, how come the Fort Denison records record no increase. Why do folks who live on the waterfront see no change in their moorings or the high tide mark? Why hasn't the shellfish industry seen a pulling up of stumps and move towards shallow water?

I have a whole side of my family in that have lived on the waterfront for five generations and when I asked them has anything changed, they answer no.

Where is the influx of Polynesians and Micronesians, forecasted thirty years ago as being imminent? The only boat people that land here are from land locked nations.

Wm Trevor>> But you now seem to be forgetting, sonogloin, that you also editorialised:
"Sea levels in Sydney harbour went down for a ten year stretch…..DOWN….."<<

Wm, I may have editorialized it, but unlike the thoroughly discredited GW scientists, I did not set false parameters and knowingly use concisely exaggerated models to achieve the result my masters wanted to see.


Belly>> Sonofglion I take it you researched the subject?
Put as much research in to it as you did in backing arjay up about America blowing up the twin towers<<

My china, is this the new strategy, divide and conquer?
Arjay and I are not a double act. He rarely adds to my thoughts or I to his. Re 911, Arjay is big enough and ugly enough to take on all comers, and he does.

579>> Pacific Islands are feeling the effects now.<<

Yes I have heard some lnfo along those lines recently, we can only keep fully aware of what unfolds and change our judgments if it makes sense to.

Wobbles…thanks.

sonogloin,

I believe the alteration from "global warming' to 'climate change' was more likely to have emanated from the "skeptics" camp.

Here's a "real" scientist on the subject.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/sea-level-rise-where-we-stand-at-the-start-of-2013/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/sea-level-rise-where-we-stand-at-the-start-of-2013-part-2/