By Paul Homewood
Nils-Axel Mörner has just published a paper “Deriving the Eustatic Sea Level Component in the Kattaegatt Sea”.
As he points out, “ sea level changes in the Kattegatt region have been in the focus of my own research for 60 years”.
Changes in global sea level is an issue of much controversy. In the Kattegatt Sea, the glacial isostatic component factor is well established and the axis of tilting has remained stable for the last 8000 years. At the point of zero regional crustal movements, there are three tide gauges indicating a present rise in sea level of 0.8 to 0.9 mm/yr for the last 125 years. This value provides a firm record of the regional eustatic rise in sea level in this part of the globe.
The eustatic changes in sea level were originally held to be the same all over the globe. We now know that this is not correct and that sea level changes significantly over the globe. The search for a mean rate of sea level change has become almost illusive as illustrated in Fig. 1. The pros and cons in this debate lie outside the scope of the present paper.
In this paper, focus is set on one single region: the Kattegatt Sea. The reason for this is that we here have a condensed record of the sea level changes and postglacial isostatic uplift The direction of uplift and the location of the zero isobase (hinge between uplift to the NE and subsidence to the SW have remained stable over the past 8000 years as evidenced by 12 individual shorelines (Fig. 3), 39 benchmarks along the Swedish West Coast and available tide gauges.
At, and close to, the line of zero uplift over the last 8000 years, there are three tide gauge stations , which are here used in order to define the regional eustatic component in the Kattegatt region. The three sites give a converging picture: a eustatic component indicating a rise in the order of 0.8‐0.9 mm/yr.
Whatever sea level may be doing in other part of the world, the mean regional eustatic value of the last 125 years is herby shown to have been about 0.8‐0.9 mm/yr in the Kattegatt region (Fig. 1).
A second outcome of the analysis is that there are no signs of any acceleration in the last 50 years.
Below is the Figure 1 which he refers to. This shows how sea level change can vary so much from one region to another.
He also includes these graphs for sea level rise at three of the locations he has examined.
There is something drastically wrong with the custodians of climate science when this sort of things happens.
As John Christie points out
“There’s a climate establishment, and I’m not in it”
Pretty damning, I would say.
DECC announce that Eon have been given permission with their huge offshore wind farm, off the Sussex coast, Rampion.
The wind farm is rated at 700 MW, with a capital cost of £2bn.
We can do a few sums:
1) At 35% utilisation, it will produce about 2TWh a year, about half a percent of the UK’s requirement.
2) At current prices, the subsidy paid for by energy users will be about £110/MWh, or about £220 million pa. Over the 15 years that prices are guaranteed, this amounts to £3.3bn, ensuring a generous return on the capital outlay of £2bn.
3) In addition Eon will receive the market price for electricity produced, currently about £50/MWh, or £100 million a year.
4) Ed Davey, our utterly inadequate Energy Secretary, brags how this project will create 750 jobs. I make that some £300k a year per job – bargain! (This of course ignores all the jobs that will be lost as a result of higher energy prices)
5) At a capital cost of £2bn, Rampion will produce, extremely intermittently, 2TWh a year. For about £400 million, we can get an efficient 800 MW gas power plant, which will produce about 6TWh a year, some three times as much.
Perhaps the most telling comment from the intellectually challenged Davey is this:
The UK leads the world in offshore wind power, with more than half the planet’s installed capacity.
Does not this ludicrously over promoted Liberal party hack realise that there might be a very good reason why the rest of the planet does not share his enthusiasm?
Dennis Avery reports on an article in Science Magazine.
Two giant wind turbines in Derby, otherwise known as Winnie and Tony, are still not working despite being ready to run last December.
The reason is that, when they turn, they interfere with the radar at nearby East Midlands Airport.
Just about everyone with any technical knowledge of wind turbines knows that. Everybody, that is, except for Severn Trent Water, who own them.
Apparently they are now waiting for the airport to install new radar equipment to “ensure that the airport can operate safely”.
As the Derby Telegraph comment
The location of the airport was hardly a secret. Why were the problems not addressed before the structures rose from the ground?”
Richard Branson has given up eating meat to “save us all from global warming”
I’m sure that will go a long way to offsetting all the emissions from his jets, not to mention the luvvie space ship Galactic!
By Paul Homewood
h/t Joe Public
The BBC report:
Climate change is helping an inconspicuous sea moss animal spread rapidly in Antarctica, say scientists.
The warmer temperatures have helped Fenestrulina rugula to thrive at the expense of other species.
The sea is freezing less so more icebergs are battering the shores of the peninsula, smashing the creatures that live there.
According to a new report, the nimble moss has managed to thrive despite the pounding.
Despite the harsh environment, the waters near the shores of the Antarctic peninsula are home to a wide diversity of species.
But over the past two decades, the rocks and boulders near the shoreline have been subject to increased scouring by icebergs.
The icebergs have been doing more damage, say scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), because there is less winter ice to restrict their movement.
Meanwhile, back in the real world.
Tomo points us to the Sussex wind energy website.
There, they have a tab called “success stories”.
Oh boy, here’s another one.
Dover District Council have wasted money on another wind turbine that has generated next to nothing.
They defend it because it has “raised the profile of renewable energy in the town”.
Now that locals have found out what a waste of space it has been, it has certainly done that.