http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/08/22/22/24/aust-sucks-up-ocean-s-waters-study

New US research shows Australia's dry soil and mountainous coastline soaked up heavy rainfall in 2010 and 2011 and stopped it from flowing back into the ocean.

That effectively halted a longterm trend of rising sea levels which have been caused by higher temperatures and melting ice sheets.

"No other continent has this combination of atmospheric set-up and topography," scientist John Fasullo, who worked on the study, said in a statement.

"Only in Australia could the atmosphere carry such heavy tropical rains to such a large area, only to have those rains fail to make their way to the ocean."

The world's oceans have been rising in recent decades by around three millimetres every year.

This is partly because heat has caused water to expand, and partly because run-off from retreating glaciers and ice sheets has made its way into the oceans.

But for an 18-month period beginning in 2010, the oceans mysteriously dropped by about seven millimetres, more than offsetting the annual rise, the study says.

The US scientists say this was mainly caused by Australia's uniquely dry soil and land surface.

While some of the water evaporated in the desert sun, much of it sank into the dry, granular soil of the Western Plateau or filled the Lake Eyre basin in the east.




so the seas rise it is ACCC.  the seas drop it is OUR FAULT???

apparently the dog ate the warming, now the dog seems to have eaten the sea level rises....

but don't mention the war.....co2 increases and no disastrous feedbacks.

longweekend58

Articles like this proves my theory is that we don't really have the scientific technique or even the data required to draw any such conclusion or make such predictions.

My other theory is given we don't understand what is actually going on, you must be a complete dumb ar$e to think you can fix it.

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 10:32am:

you must be a complete dumb ar$e to think you can fix it.

...with a tax  ;D

Halted is the wrong word swagman, interrupted is better because it goes on as part of this climate phase.

But the long view is what counts and I'm convinced we have no influence on that.
Can we bring back the land bridge between the UK and Europe?

I suggest you look up the word 'trend'. Then figure out whether we should pay attention to what happened in 2010-1 or should pay attention to what happened every other year.

An anomaly in one year does not indicate a long-term trend.

The most important sentence in the article is this:

The world's oceans have been rising in recent decades by around three millimetres every year.

But somehow you allowed your bias to blind you to that you to that - or else you do not understand simple English.

Swagman wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 10:35am:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:32am: you must be a complete dumb ar$e to think you can fix it. ...with a tax  ;D

Swagman

In the 60's they held hands around a tree and sang Kum ba yah which had about the same effect a merry-go-round tax will have.

Swagman wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 10:35am:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:32am: you must be a complete dumb ar$e to think you can fix it. ...with a tax  ;D

Yeah because prices never influence human behaviour?

http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v9/n9/images/nrc2703-f5.jpg

True Colours wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 10:54am:

Swagman wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:35am: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:32am: you must be a complete dumb ar$e to think you can fix it. ...with a tax  ;D Yeah because prices never influence human behaviour? http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v9/n9/images/nrc2703-f5.jpg

you die from cigarettes - sea level rise at 3mm per annum is gonna kill how many?

education has played a huge role in reducing smoking rates, cost less so. Its just easier to put stupid statistics up and draw tenuous conclusions from them. Addicts don't quit because of cost, they just redistribute funds from someplace else to sustain their addiction.

Rider

Its all moot as its a false assumption we can impact global changes either positively or negatively in a significant way.

The globe saw off 165 million years of the Dinosaur it will see off us.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 9:49am:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/08/22/22/24/aust-sucks-up-ocean-s-waters-study New US research shows Australia's dry soil and mountainous coastline soaked up heavy rainfall in 2010 and 2011 and stopped it from flowing back into the ocean. That effectively halted a longterm trend of rising sea levels which have been caused by higher temperatures and melting ice sheets. "No other continent has this combination of atmospheric set-up and topography," scientist John Fasullo, who worked on the study, said in a statement. "Only in Australia could the atmosphere carry such heavy tropical rains to such a large area, only to have those rains fail to make their way to the ocean." The world's oceans have been rising in recent decades by around three millimetres every year. This is partly because heat has caused water to expand, and partly because run-off from retreating glaciers and ice sheets has made its way into the oceans. But for an 18-month period beginning in 2010, the oceans mysteriously dropped by about seven millimetres, more than offsetting the annual rise, the study says. The US scientists say this was mainly caused by Australia's uniquely dry soil and land surface. While some of the water evaporated in the desert sun, much of it sank into the dry, granular soil of the Western Plateau or filled the Lake Eyre basin in the east. so the seas rise it is ACCC.  the seas drop it is OUR FAULT???

Nice selective quoting.

More information from your link:

The world's oceans have been rising in recent decades by around three millimetres every year.
...
Since 2011, sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about ten millimetres per year.

Global warming continues, and sea levels continue to rise

Long, did you choose to leave the last paragraph out on purpose ?




Quote:

Since 2011, sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about ten millimetres per year.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/08/22/22/24/aust-sucks-up-ocean-s-waters-study


The trend is still to the worst case dangerous global warming scenario.

Now the big question for conservatives, how do conservatives want to protect coastal regions from ocean inundation?

By their forced green army planting catus along the beaches?

Rider wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 11:17am:

True Colours wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:54am: Swagman wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:35am: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:32am: you must be a complete dumb ar$e to think you can fix it. ...with a tax  ;D Yeah because prices never influence human behaviour? http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v9/n9/images/nrc2703-f5.jpg you die from cigarettes - sea level rise at 3mm per annum is gonna kill how many?

The impact of sea level rise on developing countries: a comparative analysis
Our results reveal that tens of millions of people in the developing world are likely to be displaced by SLR within this century; and accompanying economic and ecological damage will be severe for many.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-008-9499-5

Swagman wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 10:35am:

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:32am: you must be a complete dumb ar$e to think you can fix it. ...with a tax  ;D

Perhaps a totally different tax might fix the issue of falling sea levels?
Have to remember though that when the Carbon tax is scrapped, sea levels may well rise again anyway.
It's a fine line when saving the planet.
Perhaps Rudd might form another committee on the issue.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 12:23pm:

Swagman wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:35am: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:32am: you must be a complete dumb ar$e to think you can fix it. ...with a tax  ;D Perhaps a totally different tax might fix the issue of falling sea levels?

Sea levels are not falling.

From the link:

The world's oceans have been rising in recent decades by around three millimetres every year.
...
Since 2011, sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about ten millimetres per year.

Stop the denial


chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 12:23pm:

Have to remember though that when the Carbon tax is scrapped, sea levels may well rise again anyway.

The carbon price is not being scrapped, it is simply moving to a floating price a year earlier than originally legislated.

Sea levels will continue to rise.  The best we can do is minimise the rate at which they are rising.

Denying the problem will not make it go away.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 9:49am:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/08/22/22/24/aust-sucks-up-ocean-s-waters-study New US research shows Australia's dry soil and mountainous coastline soaked up heavy rainfall in 2010 and 2011 and stopped it from flowing back into the ocean. That effectively halted a longterm trend of rising sea levels which have been caused by higher temperatures and melting ice sheets. "No other continent has this combination of atmospheric set-up and topography," scientist John Fasullo, who worked on the study, said in a statement. "Only in Australia could the atmosphere carry such heavy tropical rains to such a large area, only to have those rains fail to make their way to the ocean." The world's oceans have been rising in recent decades by around three millimetres every year. This is partly because heat has caused water to expand, and partly because run-off from retreating glaciers and ice sheets has made its way into the oceans. But for an 18-month period beginning in 2010, the oceans mysteriously dropped by about seven millimetres, more than offsetting the annual rise, the study says. The US scientists say this was mainly caused by Australia's uniquely dry soil and land surface. While some of the water evaporated in the desert sun, much of it sank into the dry, granular soil of the Western Plateau or filled the Lake Eyre basin in the east. so the seas rise it is ACCC.  the seas drop it is OUR FAULT???

LOL. I thought Longy had just discovered low tide.

Bit chilly this morning hey Longy? You should let Abbott know so he can scrap his "direct action" plan.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 9:49am:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/08/22/22/24/aust-sucks-up-ocean-s-waters-study New US research shows Australia's dry soil and mountainous coastline soaked up heavy rainfall in 2010 and 2011 and stopped it from flowing back into the ocean. That effectively halted a longterm trend of rising sea levels which have been caused by higher temperatures and melting ice sheets. "No other continent has this combination of atmospheric set-up and topography," scientist John Fasullo, who worked on the study, said in a statement. "Only in Australia could the atmosphere carry such heavy tropical rains to such a large area, only to have those rains fail to make their way to the ocean." The world's oceans have been rising in recent decades by around three millimetres every year.

As the article and "research" points out - sea levels over the globe are STILL rising as predicted

It is  ONLY in Australia - after decades of drought, that this phenomena has occurred - where the land has EXPANDED and effectively RISEN

Do you think this can be done EVERY year ?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 12:38pm:

... Sea levels are not falling. From the link: The world's oceans have been rising in recent decades by around three millimetres every year. ... Since 2011, sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about ten millimetres per year. Stop the denial

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/Green_Army.jpg

The point of the article is missed by most.  The real issue is just how gullible science can be to blame the filling lake Eyre for GLOBAL drops in sea levels!  It is an impossibly ludicrous explanation for 7mm global sea level drops.  The amount of water involved is incredibly huge and yet Australia barely had higher than average rainfall.

The article underlines just how little we know about climate yet how quick we are to rush to judgment with truly stupid explanations. Go take a look at Lake eyre.  it is a bout a foot deep and compared to the oceans is about 0.0001% of the surface area.

What will the next explanation be for when sea levels drop or yet another climate change prediction fails to occur - as they all do.

True Colours wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 10:43am:

I suggest you look up the word 'trend'. Then figure out whether we should pay attention to what happened in 2010-1 or should pay attention to what happened every other year. An anomaly in one year does not indicate a long-term trend. The most important sentence in the article is this: The world's oceans have been rising in recent decades by around three millimetres every year. But somehow you allowed your bias to blind you to that you to that - or else you do not understand simple English.

hmmmmmmmm, a 3/4 filled glass of water, place a few ice cubes or rocks or maybe a few sunken boats in, I'm sure the water level in the glass will rise!!!!!!!!! ::) Proven Fact 8-)
Makes me wonder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! rising sea levels ;D Maybe its all the bullshyte that is making the sea rise!!!!!!

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 4:06pm:

The point of the article ...

Misinterpretation through perversity.

longweekend58, what do the vast majority of the best qualified scientists say? What are your qualifications?

As the saying goes:
A fool is certain;
An ignorant fool, absolutely so.

# wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 4:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 4:06pm: The point of the article ... Misinterpretation through perversity. longweekend58, what do the vast majority of the best qualified scientists say? What are your qualifications? As the saying goes: A fool is certain; An ignorant fool, absolutely so.

basic maths bozo.  The explanation that Australia sucked up the WORLDS water is the kind of lunacy you expect from a bad sci-fi movie.  I have no idea why it went down but I certainly know it wasn't that as does the huge number of scientists that ARENT standing in line to agree with it.

it speaks volumes about science's ability when it comes up with such demonstrably stupid crap as this.  And you believe it too, just like a good non-think ideologue should.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 4:06pm:

The point of the article is missed by most.  The real issue is just how gullible science can be to blame the filling lake Eyre for GLOBAL drops in sea levels!  It is an impossibly ludicrous explanation for 7mm global sea level drops.  The amount of water involved is incredibly huge and yet Australia barely had higher than average rainfall.

Barely higher than average rainfall?!?!  Really?!?!
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2011/report/inland-water/images/wat-fig4-16.png

Caught telling lies and selectively misquoting to justify your denial again.  Pretty pathetic.

# wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 2:50pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 12:38pm: ... Sea levels are not falling. From the link: The world's oceans have been rising in recent decades by around three millimetres every year. ... Since 2011, sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about ten millimetres per year. Stop the denial http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/Green_Army.jpg

ironically your cartoon is EXACTLY what scientists are claiming: that the oceans have been dumped onto Australia and that is why they were lower.

can anything be more ludicrous and less believable?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 5:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 4:06pm: The point of the article is missed by most.  The real issue is just how gullible science can be to blame the filling lake Eyre for GLOBAL drops in sea levels!  It is an impossibly ludicrous explanation for 7mm global sea level drops.  The amount of water involved is incredibly huge and yet Australia barely had higher than average rainfall. Barely higher than average rainfall?!?!  Really?!?! http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2011/report/inland-water/images/wat-fig4-16.png Caught telling lies and selectively misquoting to justify your denial again.  Pretty pathetic.

you are still talking about enough water to lower the oceans!!!!  that is not credible.  it is a stupid explanation.  the amount of water involved in lowering the oceans by 7mmm PLUS the 3mm of thermal expansion makes it 10mm GLOBALLY. to do that would require every square metre of Australia to receive and absorb ENTIRELY 1000mm.  there must be no evaporation and no runoff which accounts for between 50 and 70% of rainfall meaning that australias rainfall over the entire continent would have had to been 2000mm or around 5 times want much of the coast receives and 50 times that in the centre.

it doesn't add up at all.

Not enough virgins being sacrificed thats the problem.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 12:21pm:

Rider wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 11:17am: True Colours wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:54am: Swagman wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:35am: RightSadFred wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 10:32am: you must be a complete dumb ar$e to think you can fix it. ...with a tax  ;D Yeah because prices never influence human behaviour? http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v9/n9/images/nrc2703-f5.jpg you die from cigarettes - sea level rise at 3mm per annum is gonna kill how many? The impact of sea level rise on developing countries: a comparative analysis Our results reveal that tens of millions of people in the developing world are likely to be displaced by SLR within this century; and accompanying economic and ecological damage will be severe for many. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-008-9499-5

Really bunny....is that as good as it gets? a 2009 fluff piece from some tax payer funded grant addicted warmist super sponge on society...this nonsense has been thoroughly debunked as the complete and utter nonsense it is.

You really are showing just how desperate the 'cause' has become when you are clinging to this sort of scare mongering.

...

the seas rising?

fvcken bullshit..  >:(

I've live in coastal regions all my life and I can tell you it hasn't risen by one millimetre!!

even looking at historical pictures from 100 years ago...

as for temperatures rising.. pfft... its only risen .062 in the last 15 years....

so more bullshit by labor/greens...

but why would Labor do this apart from the Greens Holding a gun to their heads and holding Australians to ransom?

if you can convince stupid sheep people that a tax is for their own good by running a scare campaign then they'll accept it and pay it no matter what the cost...

and million of people fell for the Global Warming con...

but thank god they are slowly waking up to biggest fraud of all time in world history.. !!

Even when the Australian topography has features to help slightly reduce coastal erosion through reduced sea levels, the Americans just have to blame us for something.

The tide is coming back in now Longy. What do you make of that?

Really, Longy!

http://skepticalscience.com//pics/sl_ns_global.png

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 4:51pm:

basic maths bozo.  The explanation that Australia sucked up the WORLDS water is the kind of lunacy you expect from a bad sci-fi movie.  I have no idea why it went down but I certainly know it wasn't that as does the huge number of scientists that ARENT standing in line to agree with it. it speaks volumes about science's ability when it comes up with such demonstrably stupid crap as this.  And you believe it too, just like a good non-think ideologue should.

Wow longy, you really have no idea do you. You should stear clear of the scientific threads and stick to your LNP propaganda threads.

It has been calculated that if the Greenland ice sheet melts it would cause the oceans to rise 6 metres.

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html

It is amazing how much water can be stored on land. During the last ice age sea levels dropped 100 meters.

Given these facts I find it no surprise that Australia's record rains of 2010 and 2011 would cause a small temporary drop in the sea levels.

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 11:48am:

Given these facts I find it no surprise that Australia's record rains of 2010 and 2011 would cause a small temporary drop in the sea levels.

Thats just an amazing grasp at straws by the global warming religious movement, the whole theory has fallen to bits and you are reduced to pedalling crap like that, its very sad really.

Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 11:48am: Given these facts I find it no surprise that Australia's record rains of 2010 and 2011 would cause a small temporary drop in the sea levels. Thats just an amazing grasp at straws by the global warming religious movement, the whole theory has fallen to bits and you are reduced to pedalling crap like that, its very sad really.

Yeah right. The IPCC is about to report how certainty within the scientific community is increasing.

You need to spend a few moments a day outside Murdoch's echo chamber.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlJ750FOyVY&sns=em

Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 3:52pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 11:48am: Given these facts I find it no surprise that Australia's record rains of 2010 and 2011 would cause a small temporary drop in the sea levels. Thats just an amazing grasp at straws by the global warming religious movement, the whole theory has fallen to bits and you are reduced to pedalling crap like that, its very sad really.

Given that the earth continues to warm,
sea levels continue to rise,
global glacial mass balance continues to decrease, and
the arctic ice continues to decrease

How exactly has "the whole theory has fallen to bits"?!?!?

Could you explain?
Or is it just something Jonesy told you?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 5:20pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 3:52pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 11:48am: Given these facts I find it no surprise that Australia's record rains of 2010 and 2011 would cause a small temporary drop in the sea levels. Thats just an amazing grasp at straws by the global warming religious movement, the whole theory has fallen to bits and you are reduced to pedalling crap like that, its very sad really. Given that the earth continues to warm, sea levels continue to rise, global glacial mass balance continues to decrease, and the arctic ice continues to decrease How exactly has "the whole theory has fallen to bits"?!?!? Could you explain? Or is it just something Jonesy told you?

Says who the IPCC and sceptical science....????

AGW is a lie probably the biggest lie ever told.

MOTR wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 3:52pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 11:48am: Given these facts I find it no surprise that Australia's record rains of 2010 and 2011 would cause a small temporary drop in the sea levels. Thats just an amazing grasp at straws by the global warming religious movement, the whole theory has fallen to bits and you are reduced to pedalling crap like that, its very sad really. Yeah right. The IPCC is about to report how certainty within the scientific community is increasing. You need to spend a few moments a day outside Murdoch's echo chamber. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlJ750FOyVY&sns=em

Come on, be reasonable, aren't you even slightly embarresed that the whole global warming debate has come to this??? , FFS you've got a pair of two's  ;D

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 5:20pm:

Given that the earth continues to warm, sea levels continue to rise, global glacial mass balance continues to decrease, and the arctic ice continues to decrease

Dude what planet are you on?, not Earth thats for sure  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 5:35pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 5:20pm: Given that the earth continues to warm, sea levels continue to rise, global glacial mass balance continues to decrease, and the arctic ice continues to decrease Dude what planet are you on?, not Earth thats for sure  ;D

Im sorry?!?!

Are you claiming that
earth does not continue to warm,
sea levels do not continue to rise,
global glacial mass balance does not continue to decrease, and
the arctic ice does not continue to decrease?!?!


What are you basing this bizarre claim on?

Anything?
Anything at all?!?!
Or is it just something you heard Bolty say?

Please tell us which of those simple facts I just outlined is incorrect and show us some evidence to support this opinion of yours.

Ajax wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 5:26pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 5:20pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 3:52pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 11:48am: Given these facts I find it no surprise that Australia's record rains of 2010 and 2011 would cause a small temporary drop in the sea levels. Thats just an amazing grasp at straws by the global warming religious movement, the whole theory has fallen to bits and you are reduced to pedalling crap like that, its very sad really. Given that the earth continues to warm, sea levels continue to rise, global glacial mass balance continues to decrease, and the arctic ice continues to decrease How exactly has "the whole theory has fallen to bits"?!?!? Could you explain? Or is it just something Jonesy told you? Says who the IPCC and sceptical science....???? AGW is a lie probably the biggest lie ever told.

Are you claiming that
earth does not continue to warm,
sea levels do not continue to rise,
global glacial mass balance does not continue to decrease, and
the arctic ice does not continue to decrease?!?!


What are you basing this bizarre claim on?

Anything?
Anything at all?!?!
Or is it just something you heard Bolty say?

Please tell us which of those simple facts I just outlined is incorrect and show us some evidence to support this opinion of yours.

You've got to stand back and see the big picture. It's a bit like the Irishman asked to check if his mate's car indicators are working.

no!, yes!, no!, yes!, no!, yes!, no!..........

Yes it's rising, no it's not (What happened to ACC?), .......

Look at the big picture.
Look at the long term trends.

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 11:48am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 4:51pm: basic maths bozo.  The explanation that Australia sucked up the WORLDS water is the kind of lunacy you expect from a bad sci-fi movie.  I have no idea why it went down but I certainly know it wasn't that as does the huge number of scientists that ARENT standing in line to agree with it. it speaks volumes about science's ability when it comes up with such demonstrably stupid crap as this.  And you believe it too, just like a good non-think ideologue should. Wow longy, you really have no idea do you. You should stear clear of the scientific threads and stick to your LNP propaganda threads. It has been calculated that if the Greenland ice sheet melts it would cause the oceans to rise 6 metres. http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html It is amazing how much water can be stored on land. During the last ice age sea levels dropped 100 meters. Given these facts I find it no surprise that Australia's record rains of 2010 and 2011 would cause a small temporary drop in the sea levels.

hey bozo... how about you debate my actual calculations.  if the maths is too hard I can explain it to you.

for all you limited-comprehension buffoons... the OP was about mocking the EXPLANATION which was simply ludicrous.  as usual you have avoided this and just run to your usual ideological positions.

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 11:48am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 4:51pm: basic maths bozo.  The explanation that Australia sucked up the WORLDS water is the kind of lunacy you expect from a bad sci-fi movie.  I have no idea why it went down but I certainly know it wasn't that as does the huge number of scientists that ARENT standing in line to agree with it. it speaks volumes about science's ability when it comes up with such demonstrably stupid crap as this.  And you believe it too, just like a good non-think ideologue should. Wow longy, you really have no idea do you. You should stear clear of the scientific threads and stick to your LNP propaganda threads. It has been calculated that if the Greenland ice sheet melts it would cause the oceans to rise 6 metres. http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html It is amazing how much water can be stored on land. During the last ice age sea levels dropped 100 meters. Given these facts I find it no surprise that Australia's record rains of 2010 and 2011 would cause a small temporary drop in the sea levels.

and there is your basic problem: you'd believe ANYTHING if it agreed with your ideology.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 7:44pm:

you are still talking about enough water to lower the oceans!!!!  that is not credible.  it is a stupid explanation.  the amount of water involved in lowering the oceans by 7mmm PLUS the 3mm of thermal expansion makes it 10mm GLOBALLY. to do that would require every square metre of Australia to receive and absorb ENTIRELY 1000mm.  there must be no evaporation and no runoff which accounts for between 50 and 70% of rainfall meaning that australias rainfall over the entire continent would have had to been 2000mm or around 5 times want much of the coast receives and 50 times that in the centre. it doesn't add up at all.

Do you want to check your calculations, Longy? Ocean area = 3.50E+008 km^2. Area of Australia = 7.69E+006 km^2, which works out at 2.2 % of the Ocean surface area.

I make it 0.32metres over the two years for a 7mm drop, or an average of 0.16 metres per year. That doesn't seem implausible from where I stood during those years. Some inland regions were getting up to 4 metres!

The aquifers in Central Australia were enormously depleted  prior to those two seasons, so with all the rain that drained West from the ranges, that would have had a significant effect. In fact there are measurements available if you dig enough:

http://www.nwc.gov.au/

Lake Eyre? Well that is an insignificant volume, but when you consider groundwater volumes, it comes pretty close.

As I posted elsewhere:

the surface area of the worlds oceans is about 360 million km2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean

A 7mm drop would therefore be about 2500 km3 in volume.

The Great Artesian Basin is estimated to hold some 65,000 km3 of groundwater
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin

So - a 7mm drop in the world ocean level equates to less than 4% of the capacity of the GAB.
And there is Lake Eyre, other surface and groundwater storage...

Furthermore - the average rainfall over Australia in 2010 and 2011 was about 700mm for each year
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~Water~279

Averaged over Australia's 7 million km2 - that is roughly 10,000km3 volume.  4 times that needed to decrease the world's ocean level by 7mm.  Based on those very rough calcs - the researchers theory sounds reasonably plausible

Quote:

Frequent heavy rain events from spring 2010 to autumn 2011, and again in late 2011, lead to Australia's wettest two-year period on record. Averaged across Australia, total rainfall for 2011 was 705 mm, making it the second-wettest year on record (behind 1974 with 760 mm), and ahead of 2010 (third-wettest) with 703 mm. Back-to-back La Niña events resulted in a two-year rainfall total for 2010–2011 of 1409 mm, surpassing the old record of 1407 mm set during 1973–1974.

That, combined with the massive aquifer recharge,  would have reduced ocean levels by 7mm at least.


Quote:

Special Climate Report - Australia's wettest two year period on record; 2010-2011 Issued 7th February 2012

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs38.pdf

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 8:18pm:

Averaged over Australia's 7 million km2 - that is roughly 10,000km3 volume.  4 times that needed to decrease the world's ocean level by 7mm.  Based on those very rough calcs - the researchers theory sounds reasonably plausible

Yes, we were thinking along the same lines and came up with similar results. 

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 7:44pm:

you are still talking about enough water to lower the oceans!!!!  that is not credible.  it is a stupid explanation.  the amount of water involved in lowering the oceans by 7mmm PLUS the 3mm of thermal expansion makes it 10mm GLOBALLY. to do that would require every square metre of Australia to receive and absorb ENTIRELY 1000mm.  there must be no evaporation and no runoff which accounts for between 50 and 70% of rainfall meaning that australias rainfall over the entire continent would have had to been 2000mm or around 5 times want much of the coast receives and 50 times that in the centre. it doesn't add up at all.

What is causing the thermal expansion Longy?

Aren't you one of those people that always tell us that global warming "stopped" in 1998?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 7:10pm:

for all you limited-comprehension buffoons... the OP was about mocking the EXPLANATION which was simply ludicrous.  as usual you have avoided this and just run to your usual ideological positions.

The explanation given was entirely plausible Longy. In contrast your contribution to the debate rarely progresses beyond copying and pasting the latest idiotic variant of "frost this morning, therefor no global warming".

BTW, the tide is going back out now Longy. Have you heard the ludicrous explanation about the moon causing it?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

... you'd believe ANYTHING if it agreed with your ideology.

Nothing similar could be said of you, could it el58? Heaven forfend!

muso wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 7:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 7:44pm: you are still talking about enough water to lower the oceans!!!!  that is not credible.  it is a stupid explanation.  the amount of water involved in lowering the oceans by 7mmm PLUS the 3mm of thermal expansion makes it 10mm GLOBALLY. to do that would require every square metre of Australia to receive and absorb ENTIRELY 1000mm.  there must be no evaporation and no runoff which accounts for between 50 and 70% of rainfall meaning that australias rainfall over the entire continent would have had to been 2000mm or around 5 times want much of the coast receives and 50 times that in the centre. it doesn't add up at all. Do you want to check your calculations, Longy? Ocean area = 3.50E+008 km^2. Area of Australia = 7.69E+006 km^2, which works out at 2.2 % of the Ocean surface area. I make it 0.32metres over the two years for a 7mm drop, or an average of 0.16 metres per year. That doesn't seem implausible from where I stood during those years. Some inland regions were getting up to 4 metres! The aquifers in Central Australia were enormously depleted  prior to those two seasons, so with all the rain that drained West from the ranges, that would have had a significant effect. In fact there are measurements available if you dig enough: http://www.nwc.gov.au/ Lake Eyre? Well that is an insignificant volume, but when you consider groundwater volumes, it comes pretty close.

your calculations assume ZERO evaporation which is an impossibility and far likely to be in the 80% range.  It also assumes ZERO runoff thru rivers and stream also an epic fail with an estimated 50% of water in australia running off to sea or did the rivers around the country suddenly stop flowing?  and aquifer recharge is not anywhere near as quick as you seem to conclude.

the other question to consider is why this is the FIRST time such an 'explanation' has been mooted.  has there never been droughts in other countries before following by breaking rains?

the explanation as given is an embarrassment and is so stupid as to question the capability of the person making it.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 12:54pm:

your calculations assume ZERO evaporation which is an impossibility and far likely to be in the 80% range.

No. They don't make any such assumption. Look again.


Quote:

It also assumes ZERO runoff thru rivers and stream also an epic fail with an estimated 50% of water in australia running off to sea or did the rivers around the country suddenly stop flowing?  and aquifer recharge is not anywhere near as quick as you seem to conclude.

It doesn't assume that at all. In fact the runoff plus evaporation would have been around 78% of the total rainfall. Only 22% of the total rainfall was held up.

On your second point, artesian aquifers take a long time to recharge, but perched aquifers fill up pretty quickly, depending on the overlying lithology. (I thought you were in the business)  I'm talking from experience. Having said that, some parts of the Great Artesian Basin experienced significant recharge.


Quote:

the other question to consider is why this is the FIRST time such an 'explanation' has been mooted.  has there never been droughts in other countries before following by breaking rains?

It probably isn't the first time. In fact if you look at the sea level chart, you'll see a lot of blips in there. Australia is a significantly large land mass (2.2% of ocean surface area) and it was for the most part parched prior to the 2010 season.


Quote:

the explanation as given is an embarrassment and is so stupid as to question the capability of the person making it.

It's actually quite plausible once you do the calculation. I was a bit skeptical until I calculated it out.

muso wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 2:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 12:54pm: your calculations assume ZERO evaporation which is an impossibility and far likely to be in the 80% range.  No. They don't make any such assumption. Look again. Quote: It also assumes ZERO runoff thru rivers and stream also an epic fail with an estimated 50% of water in australia running off to sea or did the rivers around the country suddenly stop flowing?  and aquifer recharge is not anywhere near as quick as you seem to conclude. It doesn't assume that at all. In fact the runoff plus evaporation would have been around 78% of the total rainfall. Only 22% of the total rainfall was held up. On your second point, artesian aquifers take a long time to recharge, but perched aquifers fill up pretty quickly, depending on the overlying lithology. (I thought you were in the business)  I'm talking from experience. Having said that, some parts of the Great Artesian Basin experienced significant recharge. [quote] the other question to consider is why this is the FIRST time such an 'explanation' has been mooted.  has there never been droughts in other countries before following by breaking rains?

It probably isn't the first time. In fact if you look at the sea level chart, you'll see a lot of blips in there. Australia is a significantly large land mass (2.2% of ocean surface area) and it was for the most part parched prior to the 2010 season.


Quote:

the explanation as given is an embarrassment and is so stupid as to question the capability of the person making it.

It's actually quite plausible once you do the calculation. I was a bit skeptical until I calculated it out. [/quote]

the great artesian basis is not a perched aquifer which are typically rather small.
However, aren't you concerned that this reason has never ever before in climate science history ever been offered?  Don't you think that it is rather convenient that when the climate change orthodosy is challenged by facts such as dropping sea levels that they trot out such an unlikely scenario?

Has it not also occurred to you that if this explanation is true that the very revers must also be undeniably true?  And that is that RISES in the sea level can also be due to nothing more than drought?  I was wonderign if someone would eventually work this out bu no one did.  so from now on, seal level is ti be a function of drought?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

Has it not also occurred to you that if this explanation is true that the very revers must also be undeniably true?  And that is that RISES in the sea level can also be due to nothing more than drought?  I was wonderign if someone would eventually work this out bu no one did.  so from now on, seal level is ti be a function of drought?

Droughts generally take a number of years for things to dry out.  It's a much more gradual process than what happened in 2010 and 2011.  If you look at the graph, you can see that the trend recovered pretty quickly after 2011.

http://skepticalscience.com//pics/sl_ns_global.png

There are all kinds of situations regarding perched aquifers. Some  follow surface water trends and some don't. Deeper groundwater aquifers (not necessarily Artesian) can recharge pretty quickly too, and there were also some pretty high rainfalls right on the ranges in the recharge zone for the GAB.  Maybe some of it is still working its way down there.

blessings..

anyone that believes that this planet ,

along with all others,

is supposed to stay at a constant within variables

and not entertain the truth of a grand cycle

maxima minima within and without

needs their head read

.....however,

they are forgiven

namaste

- : )

RightSadFred wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 10:32am:

longweekend58 Articles like this proves my theory is that we don't really have the scientific technique or even the data required to draw any such conclusion or make such predictions. My other theory is given we don't understand what is actually going on, you must be a complete dumb ar$e to think you can fix it.

RightSadFred denies that externalities exist! RightSadFred denies that markets fail!!

If RightSadFred denies that markets fail and externalities enver take place then why are markets regulated RightSadFred??

RUN RUN RUN little tryhard....  :D :D

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

muso wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 2:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 12:54pm: your calculations assume ZERO evaporation which is an impossibility and far likely to be in the 80% range.  No. They don't make any such assumption. Look again. Quote: It also assumes ZERO runoff thru rivers and stream also an epic fail with an estimated 50% of water in australia running off to sea or did the rivers around the country suddenly stop flowing?  and aquifer recharge is not anywhere near as quick as you seem to conclude. It doesn't assume that at all. In fact the runoff plus evaporation would have been around 78% of the total rainfall. Only 22% of the total rainfall was held up. On your second point, artesian aquifers take a long time to recharge, but perched aquifers fill up pretty quickly, depending on the overlying lithology. (I thought you were in the business)  I'm talking from experience. Having said that, some parts of the Great Artesian Basin experienced significant recharge. [quote] the other question to consider is why this is the FIRST time such an 'explanation' has been mooted.  has there never been droughts in other countries before following by breaking rains? It probably isn't the first time. In fact if you look at the sea level chart, you'll see a lot of blips in there. Australia is a significantly large land mass (2.2% of ocean surface area) and it was for the most part parched prior to the 2010 season. [quote] the explanation as given is an embarrassment and is so stupid as to question the capability of the person making it.

It's actually quite plausible once you do the calculation. I was a bit skeptical until I calculated it out. [/quote]

the great artesian basis is not a perched aquifer which are typically rather small.
However, aren't you concerned that this reason has never ever before in climate science history ever been offered?  Don't you think that it is rather convenient that when the climate change orthodosy is challenged by facts such as dropping sea levels that they trot out such an unlikely scenario?

Has it not also occurred to you that if this explanation is true that the very revers must also be undeniably true?  And that is that RISES in the sea level can also be due to nothing more than drought?  I was wonderign if someone would eventually work this out bu no one did.  so from now on, seal level is ti be a function of drought?[/quote]

::) ::) ::) ::)  :-*

Ajax wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 5:26pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 5:20pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 3:52pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 11:48am: Given these facts I find it no surprise that Australia's record rains of 2010 and 2011 would cause a small temporary drop in the sea levels. Thats just an amazing grasp at straws by the global warming religious movement, the whole theory has fallen to bits and you are reduced to pedalling crap like that, its very sad really. Given that the earth continues to warm, sea levels continue to rise, global glacial mass balance continues to decrease, and the arctic ice continues to decrease How exactly has "the whole theory has fallen to bits"?!?!? Could you explain? Or is it just something Jonesy told you? Says who the IPCC and sceptical science....???? AGW is a lie probably the biggest lie ever told.

Ajax, you hate your kids: we get it!

Lol, how easy is it to hate everything when you're eyeballs are burning from meth and you can't sleep but desperately want to get away from your boring existence of couting coin and smoking clouds of pretend power??

  :-? :-? :-? :-?  ;D ;D  :-*

muso wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 4:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 4:09pm: Has it not also occurred to you that if this explanation is true that the very revers must also be undeniably true?  And that is that RISES in the sea level can also be due to nothing more than drought?  I was wonderign if someone would eventually work this out bu no one did.  so from now on, seal level is ti be a function of drought? Droughts generally take a number of years for things to dry out.  It's a much more gradual process than what happened in 2010 and 2011.  If you look at the graph, you can see that the trend recovered pretty quickly after 2011. http://skepticalscience.com//pics/sl_ns_global.png There are all kinds of situations regarding perched aquifers. Some  follow surface water trends and some don't. Deeper groundwater aquifers (not necessarily Artesian) can recharge pretty quickly too, and there were also some pretty high rainfalls right on the ranges in the recharge zone for the GAB.  Maybe some of it is still working its way down there.

my point is that I have never heard this kind of 'explanation' used for sea level before and I find it rather convenient.  It is just another example of desperately trying to find some random explanation to explain a failure in the orthodoxy.  Yet try and make the claim that sea level rises NOW are because Australia is drying out (which it is). 

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 5:43pm:

muso wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 4:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 4:09pm: Has it not also occurred to you that if this explanation is true that the very revers must also be undeniably true?  And that is that RISES in the sea level can also be due to nothing more than drought?  I was wonderign if someone would eventually work this out bu no one did.  so from now on, seal level is ti be a function of drought? Droughts generally take a number of years for things to dry out.  It's a much more gradual process than what happened in 2010 and 2011.  If you look at the graph, you can see that the trend recovered pretty quickly after 2011. http://skepticalscience.com//pics/sl_ns_global.png There are all kinds of situations regarding perched aquifers. Some  follow surface water trends and some don't. Deeper groundwater aquifers (not necessarily Artesian) can recharge pretty quickly too, and there were also some pretty high rainfalls right on the ranges in the recharge zone for the GAB.  Maybe some of it is still working its way down there. my point is that I have never heard this kind of 'explanation' used for sea level before and I find it rather convenient.  It is just another example of desperately trying to find some random explanation to explain a failure in the orthodoxy.  Yet try and make the claim that sea level rises NOW are because Australia is drying out (which it is).

Regardless of the purpose of the paper, it seems plausible after some brief reality checks.

Some of the short term sea level change is probably due to Australia drying out as you put it, but it has increased to about 10mm per annum, so it can't be the whole story. 

Deathridesahorse - You're not improving the signal to noise ratio in here. Please stop abusing people.

Its all just ...



http://www.millan.net/anims/gifs/kookoo.gif

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 8:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 7:44pm: you are still talking about enough water to lower the oceans!!!!  that is not credible.  it is a stupid explanation.  the amount of water involved in lowering the oceans by 7mmm PLUS the 3mm of thermal expansion makes it 10mm GLOBALLY. to do that would require every square metre of Australia to receive and absorb ENTIRELY 1000mm.  there must be no evaporation and no runoff which accounts for between 50 and 70% of rainfall meaning that australias rainfall over the entire continent would have had to been 2000mm or around 5 times want much of the coast receives and 50 times that in the centre. it doesn't add up at all. What is causing the thermal expansion Longy? Aren't you one of those people that always tell us that global warming "stopped" in 1998?

Come on Longy.

MOTR wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 2:04am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 8:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 7:44pm: you are still talking about enough water to lower the oceans!!!!  that is not credible.  it is a stupid explanation.  the amount of water involved in lowering the oceans by 7mmm PLUS the 3mm of thermal expansion makes it 10mm GLOBALLY. to do that would require every square metre of Australia to receive and absorb ENTIRELY 1000mm.  there must be no evaporation and no runoff which accounts for between 50 and 70% of rainfall meaning that australias rainfall over the entire continent would have had to been 2000mm or around 5 times want much of the coast receives and 50 times that in the centre. it doesn't add up at all. What is causing the thermal expansion Longy? Aren't you one of those people that always tell us that global warming "stopped" in 1998? Come on Longy.

stick to the point.  this 'explanation' wants you to believe that heavy rains in australia lowered the worlds oceans by 10mm.  But a drought doesnt RAISE them?  and of course heavy rains in other parts of the world never does this?

The argument is silly because it is the classic example of casting about for any explanation that 'might possibly, perhaps kinda fit maybe, as long as all our assumptions are right...'

The right answer was 'we don't know...', because we don't.

MOTR, you beleive ANYTHING that supports your orthodoxy and reject all that doesnt.

Not sure why this is such a difficult concept for you Longy. Temperatures are not going up steadily. Oceans are not going up steadily. There are always small variations around the trend. Those variations have explanations, and the one suggested is entirely plausible.

This reminds me of your other assertion that minor party popularity always rises monotonically until immediately prior to their disappearance. You seem to have a strange fixation with putting straight lines on any measurement, then allowing only small fragments of the reality to enter your consciousness and freaking out about each and every one.

Sea levels are not rising despite what the IPCC & its computer circulation models are saying.

This guy wrote the laws on tides
http://youtu.be/8EMoU8OOsBs

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 9:40am:

stick to the point.  this 'explanation' wants you to believe that heavy rains in australia lowered the worlds oceans by 10mm.  But a drought doesnt RAISE them?  and of course heavy rains in other parts of the world never does this? The argument is silly because it is the classic example of casting about for any explanation that 'might possibly, perhaps kinda fit maybe, as long as all our assumptions are right...' The right answer was 'we don't know...', because we don't. MOTR, you beleive ANYTHING that supports your orthodoxy and reject all that doesnt.

Hey Longweekend

I had this argument over in the Environmental section.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1377319847/0#0

In the year 2010 & 2011 about 10000 kilometres cube (10000km3) of rain fell on the Australian Terrain.

Very astronomical amount of water to contemplate, i had a hard time getting my mind around it.

This paper apparently says that because so much rain fell on Australia it lowered sea levels by 7mm.

There's only one problem with that and that's this


Quote:

Key facts • Around 89% of Australia’s total rainfall evaporates or is transpired by plants into the atmosphere. Only around 9% runs off into streams, rivers and storages. The remaining 2% drains below the root zone into groundwater aquifers and, from there, into rivers. • Exactly how much rainfall returns to the atmosphere and how much is available to recharge soil, surface, and groundwater stores depends mainly on the amount of energy from sunshine, and to a much lesser degree on the type of soil and vegetation, and the management practices on the land. • Annual crops and pastures use less water per year than perennial vegetation, including trees, primarily because of their short growing seasons and shallower root systems. The larger canopies of native and plantation forests add to their higher evapotranspiration. • About 65% of continental Australia’s runoff occurs in far northern Australia and coastal Queensland. Only about 7% of runoff occurs in the Murray-Darling Basin where more than 50% of Australia’s water is used. http://www.mla.com.au/files/2089f840-665f-4c3d-834a-9d66008a9009/

So while an unbelievable amount of water did fall on Australia in 2010 & 2011, the possibility of that water all disappearing underground never to be seen again is....

Not True.

All rainwater eventually finds its way back to the ocean, or what's left of it.

A weak excuse to try and protect the IPCC failed forecast once again.

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 9:40am: stick to the point.  this 'explanation' wants you to believe that heavy rains in australia lowered the worlds oceans by 10mm.  But a drought doesnt RAISE them?  and of course heavy rains in other parts of the world never does this? The argument is silly because it is the classic example of casting about for any explanation that 'might possibly, perhaps kinda fit maybe, as long as all our assumptions are right...' The right answer was 'we don't know...', because we don't. MOTR, you beleive ANYTHING that supports your orthodoxy and reject all that doesnt. Hey Longweekend I had this argument over in the Environmental section. In the year 2010 & 2011 about 10000 kilometres cube (10000km3) of rain fell on the Australian Terrain. Very astronomical amount of water to contemplate, i had a hard time getting my mind around it. This paper apparently says that because so much rain fell on Australia it lowered sea levels by 7mm. There's only one problem with that and that's this Quote: Key facts • Around 89% of Australia’s total rainfall evaporates or is transpired by plants into the atmosphere. Only around 9% runs off into streams, rivers and storages. The remaining 2% drains below the root zone into groundwater aquifers and, from there, into rivers. • Exactly how much rainfall returns to the atmosphere and how much is available to recharge soil, surface, and groundwater stores depends mainly on the amount of energy from sunshine, and to a much lesser degree on the type of soil and vegetation, and the management practices on the land. • Annual crops and pastures use less water per year than perennial vegetation, including trees, primarily because of their short growing seasons and shallower root systems. The larger canopies of native and plantation forests add to their higher evapotranspiration. • About 65% of continental Australia’s runoff occurs in far northern Australia and coastal Queensland. Only about 7% of runoff occurs in the Murray-Darling Basin where more than 50% of Australia’s water is used. http://www.mla.com.au/files/2089f840-665f-4c3d-834a-9d66008a9009/ So while an unbelievable amount of water did fall on Australia in 2010 & 2011, the possibility of that water all disappearing underground never to be seen again is.... Not True. All rainwater eventually finds its way back to the ocean, or what's left of it. A weak excuse to try and protect the IPCC failed forecast once again.

THis is the 3rd time you have told this lie now.  Why do you keep doing it?

Nobody claimed that all of the 10,000km3 that fell on Australia was "disappearing underground never to be seen again" - yet 3 times now you have told this lie.  Why?

What you WERE told - repeatedly -  is that it would only take less than 1/4 of the 10,000km3 of rain to be retained on land to lower the world's oceans by 7mm.

Your source says that typically - some 11% of rainfall is not directly cycled back into the atmosphere, but retained on or below land.  You source also expands on this typical figure by saying:
Exactly how much rainfall returns to the atmosphere and how much is available to
recharge soil, surface, and groundwater stores depends mainly on the amount of
energy from sunshine, and to a much lesser degree on the type of soil and
vegetation, and the management practices on the land

We know that in 2010/11groundwater reserves would have been depleted after a long period of drought, and also that in those years the amount of energy from sunshine would have been less than usual because of the extreme amount or precipitation received.

THe suggestion that in 2010/11, the amount of rainfall remaining on land was higher than the typical figure of 11% and closer to 25% is not in any way unreasonable.

I suggest that this is why you continue to deliberately lie about claims that %100 of this rainfall was retained on land.

You are not fooling anyone.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 9:40am:

MOTR wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:04am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 8:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 7:44pm: you are still talking about enough water to lower the oceans!!!!  that is not credible.  it is a stupid explanation.  the amount of water involved in lowering the oceans by 7mmm PLUS the 3mm of thermal expansion makes it 10mm GLOBALLY. to do that would require every square metre of Australia to receive and absorb ENTIRELY 1000mm.  there must be no evaporation and no runoff which accounts for between 50 and 70% of rainfall meaning that australias rainfall over the entire continent would have had to been 2000mm or around 5 times want much of the coast receives and 50 times that in the centre. it doesn't add up at all. What is causing the thermal expansion Longy? Aren't you one of those people that always tell us that global warming "stopped" in 1998? Come on Longy. stick to the point.  this 'explanation' wants you to believe that heavy rains in australia lowered the worlds oceans by 10mm.  But a drought doesnt RAISE them?  and of course heavy rains in other parts of the world never does this? The argument is silly because it is the classic example of casting about for any explanation that 'might possibly, perhaps kinda fit maybe, as long as all our assumptions are right...' The right answer was 'we don't know...', because we don't. MOTR, you beleive ANYTHING that supports your orthodoxy and reject all that doesnt.

Aren't you one of those people that always repeats the silly claim by the Daily Mail columnist that  global warming "stopped" in 1998?

if so - what caused this 3mm of thermal expansion you mentioned?

Why can't you answer?

This has been done to death on the other thread in the environment forum. 

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:

Hey Longweekend I had this argument over in the Environmental section....

- and you well and truly humiliated yourself. You must have a very short memory.

Sensational journalism at its best.

Sea levels are rising 10mm/year.......????


Quote:

The world's sea levels fell in 2011 and it's all Australia's fault. New US research shows Australia's dry soil and mountainous coastline soaked up heavy rainfall in 2010 and 2011 and stopped it from flowing back into the ocean. That effectively halted a longterm trend of rising sea levels which have been caused by higher temperatures and melting ice sheets. "No other continent has this combination of atmospheric set-up and topography," scientist John Fasullo, who worked on the study, said in a statement. "Only in Australia could the atmosphere carry such heavy tropical rains to such a large area, only to have those rains fail to make their way to the ocean." The world's oceans have been rising in recent decades by around three millimetres every year. This is partly because heat has caused water to expand, and partly because run-off from retreating glaciers and ice sheets has made its way into the oceans. But for an 18-month period beginning in 2010, the oceans mysteriously dropped by about seven millimetres, more than offsetting the annual rise, the study says. The US scientists say this was mainly caused by Australia's uniquely dry soil and land surface. While some of the water evaporated in the desert sun, much of it sank into the dry, granular soil of the Western Plateau or filled the Lake Eyre basin in the east. Since 2011, sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about ten millimetres per year. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/08/22/22/24/aust-sucks-up-ocean-s-waters-study

This guy wrote the laws on tides
http://youtu.be/8EMoU8OOsBs

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:

Sensational journalism at its best. Sea levels are rising 10mm/year.......???? Quote: The world's sea levels fell in 2011 and it's all Australia's fault. New US research shows Australia's dry soil and mountainous coastline soaked up heavy rainfall in 2010 and 2011 and stopped it from flowing back into the ocean. That effectively halted a longterm trend of rising sea levels which have been caused by higher temperatures and melting ice sheets. "No other continent has this combination of atmospheric set-up and topography," scientist John Fasullo, who worked on the study, said in a statement. "Only in Australia could the atmosphere carry such heavy tropical rains to such a large area, only to have those rains fail to make their way to the ocean." The world's oceans have been rising in recent decades by around three millimetres every year. This is partly because heat has caused water to expand, and partly because run-off from retreating glaciers and ice sheets has made its way into the oceans. But for an 18-month period beginning in 2010, the oceans mysteriously dropped by about seven millimetres, more than offsetting the annual rise, the study says. The US scientists say this was mainly caused by Australia's uniquely dry soil and land surface. While some of the water evaporated in the desert sun, much of it sank into the dry, granular soil of the Western Plateau or filled the Lake Eyre basin in the east. Since 2011, sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about ten millimetres per year. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/08/22/22/24/aust-sucks-up-ocean-s-waters-study This guy wrote the laws on tides http://youtu.be/8EMoU8OOsBs

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

Now - we are waiting for you to explain why you have lied 3 times about how much rain needed to be retained on land in 2010/11 to lower the worlds oceans by 7mm.

Why have you 3 times claimed that 100% would need to be retained, when you have been shown that the actual figure is less than 25% of that.

Why the continual lying?

Do you think we don't notice?

Ajax, what did you find when you googled "glacial isostasy" as I suggested ?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 12:49pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 12:41pm: Sensational journalism at its best. Sea levels are rising 10mm/year.......???? Quote: The world's sea levels fell in 2011 and it's all Australia's fault. New US research shows Australia's dry soil and mountainous coastline soaked up heavy rainfall in 2010 and 2011 and stopped it from flowing back into the ocean. That effectively halted a longterm trend of rising sea levels which have been caused by higher temperatures and melting ice sheets. "No other continent has this combination of atmospheric set-up and topography," scientist John Fasullo, who worked on the study, said in a statement. "Only in Australia could the atmosphere carry such heavy tropical rains to such a large area, only to have those rains fail to make their way to the ocean." The world's oceans have been rising in recent decades by around three millimetres every year. This is partly because heat has caused water to expand, and partly because run-off from retreating glaciers and ice sheets has made its way into the oceans. But for an 18-month period beginning in 2010, the oceans mysteriously dropped by about seven millimetres, more than offsetting the annual rise, the study says. The US scientists say this was mainly caused by Australia's uniquely dry soil and land surface. While some of the water evaporated in the desert sun, much of it sank into the dry, granular soil of the Western Plateau or filled the Lake Eyre basin in the east. Since 2011, sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about ten millimetres per year. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/08/22/22/24/aust-sucks-up-ocean-s-waters-study This guy wrote the laws on tides http://youtu.be/8EMoU8OOsBs http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/ Now - we are waiting for you to explain why you have lied 3 times about how much rain needed to be retained on land in 2010/11 to lower the worlds oceans by 7mm. Why have you 3 times claimed that 100% would need to be retained, when you have been shown that the actual figure is less than 25% of that. Why the continual lying? Do you think we don't notice?

Hi rabbit

No i knew you would notice.

Dude all rainfall eventually finds its way to the ocean.

Now how much did actually evaporate how much did become run off and how much did go underground..???..is any bodies guess with respect to those percentage guide lines.

I know you're saying that 2500 cubic kilometres may have gone underground.

But that's "may"

You don't know for sure.

We assume that about 89% evaporates then your left with 1100km3.

The one thing i do know is all rainwater goes back into the ocean at some point in time.

And you have to remember the monsoons over Asia they too would have a bit of water in them.

What about rains over other continents and land masses.

Should we also start taking out the rain that fell on them out of the ocean....??????

I guess they had to cover it some way....?

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 1:24pm:

I know you're saying that 2500 cubic kilometres may have gone underground.

You didn't even get that bit right. How many times do I have to produce this graph?

As for your dodgy Swedish water diviner mate, his malarkey has been exposed:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/12/rising-incredulity-at-the-spectator%E2%80%99s-use-of-dubious-sea-level-claims


Quote:

These are striking claims that jar with the generally accepted scientific view that sea levels are rising due to climate change, and that this will affect low lying countries. As a result, Mörner's work has been subjected to close examination by other scientists working on sea level change in the Maldives, including papers from Professor Colin Woodroffe at the University of Wollongong, Professor Philip Woodworth of the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, and a group of Australia scientists led by Dr. John Church at the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research. They all criticise Mörner's approach and conclusions - Woodworth examined Mörner's claims from "meteorological and oceanographic perspectives" and found them "implausible". Woodroffe described Mörner's claims as "questionable" pointing out his methodologies do not stand up to scrutiny, and that his conclusions lack supporting evidence. The group of Australian scientists found "no evidence for the fall in sea level at the Maldives as postulated by Mörner." Futhermore, Mörner's claims about satellite altimetry are in error - the technique shows that sea levels rose by around 3 mm per year between 1993 and 2006. This brings us to INQUA, the International Union for Quaternary Reseach, a professional association of scientists from over 50 countries who study long-term climate change. Mörner claims to be articulating INQUA's collective view, but based on our inquiries with the organisation this appears to be a very bare misrepresentation. To the extent that INQUA have a collective view on this issue, it seems diametrically opposed to that of Mörner's. Professor Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth is the current president of the INQUA commission on Coastal and Marine Processes - the part of INQUA that now considers sea level change. He described Mörner as a "very good field scientist" and an "entertaining speaker". But, he says, it is misleading for Mörner to describe 'INQUA's research' as showing that sea levels are not rising.

This guy wrote the laws on tides is a major nutjob

The graph again: (for the sixth time)  ::)

Now a disclaimer: The data for this graph doesn't use the skeletons of buried women in the Maldives, water divining or anything like that, but it does represent the research of experts in the field.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel5/sl_ns_global.png


Nerem, R. S., D. Chambers, C. Choe, and G. T. Mitchum. "Estimating Mean Sea Level Change from the TOPEX and Jason Altimeter Missions." Marine Geodesy 33, no. 1 supp 1 (2010): 435.

you don't think that this 'explanation' is a tad convenient?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 5:01pm:

you don't think that this 'explanation' is a tad convenient?

You mentioned that there has been 3mm of thermal expansion of the oceans.

What is causing this?

Aren't you one of those people that always repeats the silly claim by the Daily Mail columnist that  global warming "stopped" in 1998?

It's really quite simple.

Human induced global warming must be false because there are so many with vested interests in polluting fossil fool companies.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:01pm: you don't think that this 'explanation' is a tad convenient? You mentioned that there has been 3mm of thermal expansion of the oceans. What is causing this? Aren't you one of those people that always repeats the silly claim by the Daily Mail columnist that  global warming "stopped" in 1998?

so NOT able to answer the question how 10mm of reduction in sea levels can so conveniently be sheeted home to large rainfalls in Australia?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 5:01pm:

you don't think that this 'explanation' is a tad convenient?

Is that the only criticism you have of it?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:30pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:01pm: you don't think that this 'explanation' is a tad convenient? You mentioned that there has been 3mm of thermal expansion of the oceans. What is causing this? Aren't you one of those people that always repeats the silly claim by the Daily Mail columnist that  global warming "stopped" in 1998? so NOT able to answer the question how 10mm of reduction in sea levels can so conveniently be sheeted home to large rainfalls in Australia?

That has already ben answered multiple times in multiple threads.  But I will answer it again for you because you seem a bit slow.

To reduce the global sea level by 7mm (not 10mm), would require about 2500km3 of precipitation to be retained on land rather than flowing straight back into the ocean.

Over 2010/11, some 10,000km3 rain fell on Australia - more than 4 times the amount required to reduce the global sea level by 7mm.

And this fell on Australia after a very severe period of drought over 2006-08 - much of it west of the Great Dividing rain, where the runoff flows to the interior and not the ocean.

You may find this "convenient" - but it is a pretty logical explanation for the 18 month period where sea levels dropped slightly.

Now - can you explain to us what is causing the  3mm of thermal expansion of the oceans you mentioned?


Aren't you one of those people that always repeats the silly claim by the Daily Mail columnist that  global warming "stopped" in 1998?

If the earth "stopped warming 1998" - what is causing the thermal expansion.

Please answer the question.
You have run away from it 3 times now.
Why is that?

muso wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 1:22pm:

Ajax, what did you find when you googled "glacial isostasy" as I suggested ?

And..........???

Your not going to blame CO2 for this are you.....???

muso wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 2:29pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 1:24pm: I know you're saying that 2500 cubic kilometres may have gone underground. You didn't even get that bit right. How many times do I have to produce this graph? As for your dodgy Swedish water diviner mate, his malarkey has been exposed: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/12/rising-incredulity-at-the-spectator%E2%80%99s-use-of-dubious-sea-level-claims Quote: These are striking claims that jar with the generally accepted scientific view that sea levels are rising due to climate change, and that this will affect low lying countries. As a result, Mörner's work has been subjected to close examination by other scientists working on sea level change in the Maldives, including papers from Professor Colin Woodroffe at the University of Wollongong, Professor Philip Woodworth of the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, and a group of Australia scientists led by Dr. John Church at the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research. They all criticise Mörner's approach and conclusions - Woodworth examined Mörner's claims from "meteorological and oceanographic perspectives" and found them "implausible". Woodroffe described Mörner's claims as "questionable" pointing out his methodologies do not stand up to scrutiny, and that his conclusions lack supporting evidence. The group of Australian scientists found "no evidence for the fall in sea level at the Maldives as postulated by Mörner." Futhermore, Mörner's claims about satellite altimetry are in error - the technique shows that sea levels rose by around 3 mm per year between 1993 and 2006. This brings us to INQUA, the International Union for Quaternary Reseach, a professional association of scientists from over 50 countries who study long-term climate change. Mörner claims to be articulating INQUA's collective view, but based on our inquiries with the organisation this appears to be a very bare misrepresentation. To the extent that INQUA have a collective view on this issue, it seems diametrically opposed to that of Mörner's. Professor Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth is the current president of the INQUA commission on Coastal and Marine Processes - the part of INQUA that now considers sea level change. He described Mörner as a "very good field scientist" and an "entertaining speaker". But, he says, it is misleading for Mörner to describe 'INQUA's research' as showing that sea levels are not rising. This guy wrote the laws on tides is a major nutjob The graph again: (for the sixth time)  ::) Now a disclaimer: The data for this graph doesn't use the skeletons of buried women in the Maldives, water divining or anything like that, but it does represent the research of experts in the field. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel5/sl_ns_global.png Nerem, R. S., D. Chambers, C. Choe, and G. T. Mitchum. "Estimating Mean Sea Level Change from the TOPEX and Jason Altimeter Missions." Marine Geodesy 33, no. 1 supp 1 (2010): 435.

That graph is not worth the paper its printed on.

I told you satellites cannot measure sea levels down to that kind of accuracy.

see here.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1377845110

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 10:00pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:38pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:30pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:01pm: you don't think that this 'explanation' is a tad convenient? You mentioned that there has been 3mm of thermal expansion of the oceans. What is causing this? Aren't you one of those people that always repeats the silly claim by the Daily Mail columnist that  global warming "stopped" in 1998? so NOT able to answer the question how 10mm of reduction in sea levels can so conveniently be sheeted home to large rainfalls in Australia? That has already ben answered multiple times in multiple threads.  But I will answer it again for you because you seem a bit slow. To reduce the global sea level by 7mm (not 10mm), would require about 2500km3 of precipitation to be retained on land rather than flowing straight back into the ocean. Over 2010/11, some 10,000km3 rain fell on Australia - more than 4 times the amount required to reduce the global sea level by 7mm. And this fell on Australia after a very severe period of drought over 2006-08 - much of it west of the Great Dividing rain, where the runoff flows to the interior and not the ocean. You may find this "convenient" - but it is a pretty logical explanation for the 18 month period where sea levels dropped slightly. Now - can you explain to us what is causing the  3mm of thermal expansion of the oceans you mentioned? Aren't you one of those people that always repeats the silly claim by the Daily Mail columnist that  global warming "stopped" in 1998? If the earth "stopped warming 1998" - what is causing the thermal expansion. Please answer the question. You have run away from it 3 times now. Why is that?

the argument remains terribly convenient given that this excuse has never before been used.  Unless you want to postulate that Australias drought followed by heavy rain is a global first?

and it is 10mmm not 7.  if the average rise is 3mm per year then a 7mm drop is a SHIFT in the average of 10mm.

basic maths,

Quote:

given that this excuse has never before been used

So because Longy only just stumbled across it, it never existed before?

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 8:05pm:

Quote: given that this excuse has never before been used So because Longy only just stumbled across it, it never existed before?

then feel free to use that giant brain of yours and disprove me if you can.  or if you would rather, find that evidence about the never-ending lifesycle of third parties.

or you could also do what you do increasingly more now and just ban members that ask you inconvenient questions.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 11:23pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 31st, 2013 at 8:05pm: Quote: given that this excuse has never before been used So because Longy only just stumbled across it, it never existed before? then feel free to use that giant brain of yours and disprove me if you can.  or if you would rather, find that evidence about the never-ending lifesycle of third parties. or you could also do what you do increasingly more now and just ban members that ask you inconvenient questions.

Can you explain to us what is causing the  3mm of thermal expansion of the oceans you mentioned?

You have run away from this question 4 times now.

Aren't you one of those people that always repeats the silly claim by the Daily Mail columnist that  global warming "stopped" in 1998?

If the earth "stopped warming 1998" - what is causing the thermal expansion.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 12:59am:

Can you explain to us what is causing the  3mm of thermal expansion of the oceans you mentioned? You have run away from this question 4 times now.

I think Longy is actually a bit embarrassed about this thread.
He started with the claim in the title "Sea Levels fall! What happened to ACC?" but when you got exposed for deceptively removing the fact that sea levels have continued rising since 2011 he had to change tactics.

Now he is disputing the calculations.......and quite ironicly using global warming in a desperate attempt to try and prove them wrong

;D ;D ;D

Quote:

I think Longy is actually a bit embarrassed about this thread.

Longy is impervious to shame.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 12:59am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 31st, 2013 at 11:23pm: freediver wrote on Aug 31st, 2013 at 8:05pm: Quote: given that this excuse has never before been used So because Longy only just stumbled across it, it never existed before? then feel free to use that giant brain of yours and disprove me if you can.  or if you would rather, find that evidence about the never-ending lifesycle of third parties. or you could also do what you do increasingly more now and just ban members that ask you inconvenient questions. Can you explain to us what is causing the  3mm of thermal expansion of the oceans you mentioned? You have run away from this question 4 times now. Aren't you one of those people that always repeats the silly claim by the Daily Mail columnist that  global warming "stopped" in 1998? If the earth "stopped warming 1998" - what is causing the thermal expansion.

the claim is one of basic mathematics.  if the average ris in levels is 3mm pa and oen year it DROPS 7mm then the variation on the trend is TEN mm

whay do you stuggle to work that out.  There probably isn't a scientisnt in the world who wouldn't accept that. 

so re-work your calculations on 10mm and come back and tell us all how it was a one-time only event in recorded history.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 12:29pm:

Quote: I think Longy is actually a bit embarrassed about this thread. Longy is impervious to shame.

looking forward to the NDP, AP, ON and DLP winning a swag of senate seats next Saturday?  That is in keeping with your believes on third parties, isn't it?