Andrew Bolt in one graph

Andrew Bolt claims:

In fact, the seas have not risen for nearly four years

i-b61ba55f77ccc7130aa283bc404d9f77-alt_gmsl_seas_rem.png

Comments

  1. #1 Bernard J.
    February 16, 2010

    When I was a boy, one of the kids in my street had a dog, and if anyone pulled its tail it would spend ages running in a circle chasing it.

    Drongo, you are chasing your own tail with more determination than the dog from my childhood, but with no more chance of catching it.

    You think that you have a case, and that we don’t. Be objective and scientific in putting your case (you do understand the method of presenting a scientific case, don’t you?), and list pertinent scientific explanations for why you are correct, and why my case and Chris’s, Lee’s, Joseph’s, jackerman’s, Stu’s, and others’, are not correct.

    Note that in order to do so you will finally have to address my questions and points at [#12](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2255571), [#30](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2257323), [#85](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2260055), [#94](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2262230), [#115](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2265030), [#133](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2265248), [#141](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2265543), [#151](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2267454), [#158](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2267771), [#165](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2270120), [#172](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2273219), [#176](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2274623), [#183](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2274973), [#186](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2275109), [#189](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2275307), and [#190](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2275320).

    You have a lot of work to do to even pretend that you can haul yourself out of the hole in which you’ve thrown yourself, and probably about as much chance of doing so as HM corgi Butterball has of grabbing his own, lamentably docked, tail.

  2. #2 jakerman
    February 16, 2010

    Drongo, do you have data that you are withholding? Or was that [bit with your life’s diaries](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2265011) a rouse to create the illusion that you might have more data that you are withholding?

  3. #3 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  4. #4 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  5. #5 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  6. #6 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  7. #7 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  8. #8 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  9. #9 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  10. #10 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  11. #11 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  12. #12 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  13. #13 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  14. #14 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  15. #15 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  16. #16 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  17. #17 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  18. #18 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  19. #19 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  20. #20 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    DOLTOIDS AHOY,

    “completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf *”

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

  21. #21 zoot
    February 16, 2010

    There’s your problem drongo. You should read the words as well as look at the pictures. BTW seems to me Figure 1 in your linked document shows sea level rises.

  22. #22 Special Drongo
    February 16, 2010

    >*What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?*

    Nothings wrong but here but you Drongo.

    Sydney (152 E) up;

    Brisbane ((154 E) broken: flat or down;

    Townsville (147 E) up:

  23. #23 sunspot
    February 16, 2010

    Special Drongo, your observations are to be congratulated, they are far more believable than the tripe we are being served up, I suppose that by now you know first hand that the global warming fanatic’s in deltoid appear to be reincarnated flat earthers that are hellbent on protecting their climate cult
    and their carbon credits at all costs,
    personally I don’t bother with them anymore, I just pop in to read their comical delusions.

  24. #24 Chris O'Neill
    February 16, 2010

    Stupid old drongo:

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR

    Maybe the stupid old drongo is blind as well as stupid. Perhaps he doesn’t realize the tide gauge graphs in Church et al have a range of +/- 100mm. In any case the tide gauge data is available here and Sydney and Townsville’s sea level trends since 1920 (or when the guage data began for Townsville in 1959) are both positive. Anyone who can work out a trend can work this out from the data but that’s probably too hard for stupid old drongo.

  25. #25 Bernard J.
    February 16, 2010

    Drongo asks:

    What is it about the tide gauge measurements [not the reconstructions or Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions] on these east coast ports, Townsville, Brisbane and Sydney] for the last 50 years that show NO SLR, that you DDTs don’t understand?

    What is is about the best analysis of raw tade gauge data that you don’t understand – besides everything, that is…

    And what’s with the “Church’s sleight-of-hand conclusions” comment? Are you accusing Church et al of fraud? Be careful what you say here drongo, because you don’t want to drift into the Rose/Leake arena of libelous claims.

    More importantly, if you are going to accuse Church et al of fraud, you will have to accuse the Australian Bureau of Meteorology of fraud too. Consider [Figure 17](http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2009.pdf)…

    Drongo, when are you going to stop repeating mindless claims, based on uninformed hearsay, and replace them with a structured and evidence-supported disussion that addresses the many flaws in your current balderdash? Aren’t you embarrassed, at the very least in front of your (conspicuously silent) peers at the Old Swamp and the New, that you have not presented anything resembling a coherent argument to counter the telling destruction of your little house hut doghouse shoebox of cards?

  26. #26 Bernard J.
    February 16, 2010

    Drongo.

    Given your profound insight into sea level rise, I presume that you prepared a submission for the recent [Australian coastal report released by Climate Change Committee](http://www.aph.gov.au/house/house_news/news_stories/news_ccwea_oct09.htm).

    Would you care to indicate what your contribution was? Nothing in the submissions chapter seems to refer to anything related to your claims.

  27. #27 spangled drongo
    February 16, 2010

    How many doltoids does it take to switch on a light bulb [let alone change one that has gone out]???

    Most major ports around the world [where incidently most of the tide gauges are] have been dredged and opened substantially over the last century to accommodate huge increases in both size and numbers of ships. This exponentially increases tide bore and must alter MSL and ARI data and would even have some effect on highest recordings particularly wrt storm surges.

    Until this is quantified small increases in SLR have to be treated with scepticism.

    Where the more established tide gauges show comparable highest recordings going back prior to this dredging [such as Sydney] you can assume that not much is happening at all.

    And, do you all believe that the areas that are rising and the areas that are falling around the world, go on doing that indefinitely?

  28. #28 Shorter Drongo
    February 16, 2010

    Shorter Drongo,

    I’m going to argue that you should only look at tidal gauges; so that once I can pretend you only look at tidal gaugues, and can show you that you are wrong for only looking at tidal gauges.

  29. #29 Graham
    February 16, 2010

    According to your trend line, it will take another 100 years before seas rise to their 1841 level set in stone. Assuming, of course, that they keep rising.
    http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm

    Tim, climate throws up so many chaotic surprises that predictive modelling is a mug’s game. Use a crystal ball instead or just give up, mate.

  30. #30 Shorter Drongo
    February 16, 2010

    Shorter Graham,

    Ignore science, put your head in the sand.

    Ooooh its dark under here. Och! Is that you drongo? Oh and Piers, with Andrew!

  31. #31 Graham
    February 16, 2010

    Re Post 1

    “The average denialist registers somewhere between one and five Bolts”

    or, between one and five Galileo Galilei’s,

    for both had a role in rescuing the world from the tyranny of religious fanaticism.

  32. #32 Shorter Drongo
    February 16, 2010

    >*between one and five Galileo Galilei’s*

    Fraid not Graham, the Scientist calim the Galileo ratings, cos like Galileo, they use evidence. Bolt is the one who relies on the [inquisition like rehtoric](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/media_watch_is_overheating_in_its_climate_jihad).

    >*I rather feel that the critical issue here is not Houghton’s form of words but his attitude.*

    Start [here](http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html) with evidence.

  33. #33 Vince Whirlwind
    February 16, 2010

    Graham,

    I guess you have two choices,

    1/ Read as gospel the nonsense about marks scratched into rocks by various 19th-Century sailors you read on the kooksite by John Daly, a retired sailor;

    *OR*

    2/ Refer to a proper scientific site established by proper scientists who use satellites to measure sea level:
    < http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/>

  34. #34 Fran Barlow
    February 17, 2010

    Vince …

    I guess you have two choices,

    {pedant’s corner} Since a condition in which only one state or course of action is possible calls for no judgement at all to say there is a choice implies that there is more than one possible state. Therefore, if there are only two possible (alternate) states, there is only one choice, that being which of the alternatives to choose. If there were three possible states, one would then have three choices. i.e 1 OR 2; 2 OR 3; 1 OR 3 though one could make the argument that excluding one of these from consideration before chosing from the remainder was also a choice, meaning that one would then have four choices {/pedant’s corner}

    cue: Spanish Inquisition routine;-)

  35. #35 Graham
    February 17, 2010

    Thanks, Vince, but the choices I have are for me to decide. Specifically, Hunter, Pugh and others driving the alleged accelerating sea level agenda were not so scathing of that mark “scratched” into a rock. In fact they used it as a reliable benchmark to prove to their paymasters that IPCC predictions were essentially correct. Pity they misrepresented the mark as “high tide” when the explorer responsible for the mark clearly designated it as “mean sea level” (MSL). MSL to-day is about 30 cm below that mark. Still, pal-reviewed papers like Hunter’s and Pugh’s won the day for reasons that are all too familiar now. “Proper scientists”? Give me a break.

    P.S. The mark was engraved in a rock, not “rocks”. Have you read the literature, “proper scientist”?

  36. #36 spangled drongo
    February 17, 2010

    How many Doltoids does it take to change a light bulb without getting peer reviewed?

    Vince, that mark of Daly’s was put there by smarter people than you and represents far better data than the vaguaries that come from satellite measurements. Put there by Ross at the request of Humboldt in 1841, it is the best peer review you will ever come across.

  37. #37 jakerman
    February 17, 2010

    Drongo (Graham), you may have missed [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2277957):

    > do you have data that you are withholding? Or was that bit with your life’s diaries a rouse to create the illusion that you might have more data that you are withholding?

    PS. Are you concerned that Graham Bird is talking to himself over at what ever his blog is called? Why is Bird the only person writing on his blog? Why don’t you add your voice to his. Perhaps you could get Bird to support your crazy single point trumps all others theory?

  38. #38 Chris O'Neill
    February 17, 2010

    Graham:

    Pity they misrepresented the mark as “high tide” when the explorer responsible for the mark clearly designated it as “mean sea level” (MSL). MSL to-day is about 30 cm below that mark.

    Amazing, both Australian tides gauges going back nearly continuously to the 19th century show a long term rising trend in sea level and this Graham thinks in spite of this, the sea level at Tasmania is actually 30cm lower than the early 19th century. Amazing how he can be so credulous.

  39. #39 Graham
    February 17, 2010

    Yes, Chris, it does seem incredible! Actually, it’s a rise (relative to that mark) of just 2.5 cm since 1888. Figures below are from that link which includes references to the relevant studies. Apparently that rise 1841-1888 is related as much to actual MSL as it is to land uplift and error of measurement. That’s outside my field, but I suspect within yours. In any event, 34 cm in 1888 would have turned a few heads! Thanks for your comment.
    MSL (cm) relative to 1888
    1841 34
    1888 0
    2000 2.5
    http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm

  40. #40 Joseph
    February 17, 2010

    Tim, climate throws up so many chaotic surprises that predictive modelling is a mug’s game.

    Again, it can’t be that chaotic, otherwise you couldn’t explain things like this.

  41. #41 Graham
    February 17, 2010

    222 revision

    (esp “rise 1841-1888″ should be “fall 1841-1888″):

    Yes, Chris, it does seem incredible! Actually, it’s a rise (relative to that mark) of just 2.5 cm since 1888. Figures below are from that link which includes references to the relevant studies. Apparently that fall 1841-1888 is related as much to actual MSL as it is to land uplift and error of measurement. That’s outside my field, but I suspect within yours. In any event, 34 cm in 1888 would have turned a few heads! Thanks for your comment.
    MSL (cm) relative to 1888:-
    1841 34
    1888 0
    2000 2.5
    http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm

  42. #42 Graham
    February 17, 2010

    Good point. Nice graph. Expanding the time scale somewhat, I had in mind those itty bitty chaotic episodes like “travesty” Trenberth’s surprise! (Explanations or modelling to rationalise that don’t help. Isn’t that the nature of chaos? Factor one into the model and, oh travesty, there’s another!)

  43. #43 Vince Whirlwind
    February 17, 2010

    I notice Graham fails to state the error/uncertainty in his “2.5cm since 1888″ figure, proving his lack of scientific rigour, but he continues to link to the kook-site by a retired sailor.

    Interestingly, when we consult proper scientists from a non-kook website
    < http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/>
    we find that sea level is now increasing at 3mm+/-0.4mm/year.

    Is somebody somehow imagining that some marks scratched into rocks over 120 years ago are a more accurate measure than satellite measurements?

  44. #44 spangled drongo
    February 17, 2010

    Vince,

    Accepting satellite measurement over tide gauge shows your faith in guesswork, prediction, estimation and modelling.

    Please correct me on this but my understanding is that satellites: 1/ Measure each reading to within “a few centimetres”. 2/ Altimetry is accurate to also within “a few centimetres”. 3/ Radar pulse has to be corrected for cloud and atmo pressure. 4/ Readings then have ocean tide models [predictions which we know are often wrong] convert this to “detided” SSH. 5/ Readings are corrected for inverted barometer.

    This is done by a satellite in near [but not perfect] circular orbit trying to measure a non parallel, pear shaped, lumpy surface called a geoid.

    So after this very approximate but not consistently very approximate data is passed through who knows how many computer codes we are supposed to believe in steady SLR of 3 mm per year.

    Makes a good bed time story but I’ll stick to observable SLs thanks.

  45. #45 Graham
    February 17, 2010

    Vince,

    I’m not one to challenge satellite measurements when they are taken. Hot stuff, in all likelihood. The key argument is with the modelling, back in time and forward in time, massaged to conform to an agenda.

    So yes, indeed, much store can be placed in that mark engraved in a rock-face by a senior government official who measured and logged tide levels assiduously for 2 years. He engraved that mark for posterity. To repeat, it is accepted as a reliable benchmark by researchers also riding the accelerating sea rise IPCC band wagon. Maybe you should address your invective to them!

  46. #46 jakerman
    February 17, 2010

    Graham , what do you think of spangled drongo’s argument: that his “HAT” tide mark at one location (plus some possible/made-up secret data at that location) trump the SL data gathered by the CSIRO and other leading research organisations?

    Do you think drongo has made a credible argument?

  47. #47 Chris O'Neill
    February 17, 2010

    Graham:

    it does seem incredible!

    I said you were credulous. Your dinosaur has been dealt with years ago.

  48. #48 spangled drongo
    February 18, 2010
  49. #49 Michael
    February 18, 2010

    There’s no doubting who the real drongo is.

    The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 6-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009)” – ARGO.

    Look [here](http://sealevel.colorado.edu/) drongo, you idjit.

  50. #50 Bernard J.
    February 18, 2010

    Drongo [says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2286729):

    Read it and weep.

    Oh, I read it and wept alright, drongo…

    For all of your teachers who, if they knew of your innumeracy and of your scientific illiteracy, would surely tear out their hair over the utterly incontrovertible evidence that they were not able to assist you in learning even the basics.

    I could tell you why one should not attempt to fit trend lines to periodic phenomena, but I doubt that you have the capacity to understand an explanation by reading it.

    I sincerely hope that a [pretty picture, with lots of pretty colours](http://i47.tinypic.com/33w356w.jpg), mighter serve to humiliate you to a retraction.

    Oh, and speaking of retractions, I am about to wipe the floor with the pulped mess that is the remains of your dignity. One last chance – do you recant your nonsense about king tides and sea level rise?

  51. #51 Bernard J.
    February 18, 2010

    That [should have read](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2286853) “why one should not attempt to fit linear trend lines to periodic phenomena”, in case anyone didn’t understand the context.

  52. #52 spangled drongo
    February 19, 2010

    “I am about to wipe the floor with the pulped mess that is the remains of your dignity”

    Bernie, I’d settle for you just wiping the spittle and dribble off your lips.

    This post was about the last four years and both the Argo data and the U of Colarado say that nothing has been happening ww for four years. I [and CSIRO] also show that less than nothing has been happening in MBY for over 40 years.

    But maybe you will reconstruct all the data and show us what’s really happening.

  53. #53 Michael
    February 19, 2010

    Drongo,

    My post above(@232) contains a link to the Uni of Colarado graph on sea-level going right up to 2010.

    Have a look at it you complete dill.

  54. #54 Bernard J.
    February 19, 2010

    Well, so far there’s been no apology from Mangled Drongo for ignorant culpability in colluding in the [fitting of inappropriate linear trends lines to oscillating phenomena](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2286729), but then, he’d deny the fact of the nose on the front of his face if said proboscis contradicted one of his ideologies.

    And I see that drongo has managed to recruit one lackey to his sea level rise cause. Unfortunately for him, Graham has nothing to offer in any sensible scientific context, so drongo has made no ground.

    And he is in fact about to lose some ground, just as a beach loses sand in the face of a cyclone…

    …because whilst he was sitting on his hands not answering [my questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2277931) to him I contacted, through a friend, the Queensland Maritime Services Branch of Maritime Safety Queensland. Ask the right people, et voila!, one gets the raw data.

    Yep, I have the raw tidal gauge measurements for the Brisbane Bar (February 1966 – June 2004) and for the Goldcoast seaway (January 1986 – December 2004). And interesting data it is, too…

    I’ve started poking around the data vaults whilst I was waiting for another modem replacement, and there is a great deal to see about tides, about tidal measurement, and about sea level in general. There’s is so much information in fact that it’s hard to know where to start, so for now I will present the data most pertinent to drongo’s claim that his summer king tide “observations” during the 1960s, in comparison with this summer’s heights, show that sea level is falling.

    It is important to always keep in mind during consideration of these data that the fellow that my friend and I obtained the data through, indicated that the extreme tide and the mean tide data from the two guages are not appropriate for actual sea level change determinations. This has much to do with the fact that I only requested monthly extremes, and not the continuous monitoring record which would have required more patience than I was willing to direct to the exercise, and which is not necessary in the context of drongo’s claims anyway.

    So, what do we see?

    Starting with the Brisbane Bar data for [the month of January](http://i47.tinypic.com/25s78rc.jpg), the first thing one will notice is that there is a gap from October 1973 to December 1979. It seems that the gauge was not operating during this period, and this data is refelcted in the Church et al paper that drongo so misinterprets.

    It is also quite apparent that the maximum high tide values are inherently more variable than the January monthly mean high tide values, and indeed than the January monthly mean tide values, as I took great pains to explain to drongo. This reflects of course the meteorological stochastic effects being less smoothed by including only once-per-month observations compared with taking many dozens, or indeed many thousands, of readings per month.

    The ranges are also greater for the 1980-2004 period than for the 1966-1979 period, for the trivially obvious reason that there was more time to collect extreme maximum and events.

    Both of these results are also seen by reference to the relevant tide height (m) data from the graph:

    Min lo Max hi Mean hi Mean tide
    66-73: 0.18 0.30 0.11 0.11
    80-04: 0.30 0.41 0.28 0.20

    The Brisbane Bar graph for January 1966-1973 shows a decreasing trend for all tide parameters included on the plot. Before drongo gets too excited though he should consider several points.

    Applying his king tide “method” to the January months over this period, a linear regression indicates a rate of decrease of 22 mm per year. Um, realistic? Perhaps even drongo would admit that it’s not. He might though seize upon the fact that the ‘trends’ in minimum low tide height, and in the maximum high tide and in the monthly mean tide heights, are all close to each other, and thus claim that the ‘real’ rate of decrease is around 12 mm/yr:

    Min lo Max hi Mean hi Mean tide
    66-73: -11.8 -22.1 -11.4 -11.8
    80-04: 4.8 4.1 5.0 4.2

    He might. However, he would then have to acknowledge that all of these tide parameters show an increasing trend of 4-5 mm/yr during the 1980-2004 period.

    Dang, huh?

    It grows worse.

    When one considers the same data, [but for February](http://i48.tinypic.com/10xzn2v.jpg) – just in case that’s when the ‘real‘ king tides occur that somehow predict sea level change – everything with respect to rates of change is different! Now most of the trendlines are positive:

    Min lo Max hi Mean hi Mean tide
    66-73: -15.0 -1.4 2.3 3.0
    80-04: -1.5 -0.1 1.0 0.4

    The ranges aren’t any better in terms of justifying the use of king tides to determine changes in sea level:

    Min lo Max hi Mean hi Mean tide
    66-73: 0.21 0.23 0.20 0.14
    80-04: 0.38 0.44 0.21 0.22

    Double dang, eh drongo?

    Oo, oo – I know! What about the Goldcoast data?!

    Ba-bowww.

    Other than the minimum low tide heights, the [January data for the Goldcoast Seaway](http://i50.tinypic.com/3150u9s.jpg) all indicate a rising trend – even the noisy maximum hight tide heights. Wanna know the annual rates in mm, according to the linear trendlines? Done:

    Min lo Max hi Mean hi Mean tide
    -2.2 8.5 8.8 5.6

    Gawd, what’s a denialist gotta do to get some ‘evidence’?

    How about the [February data for the Goldcoast](http://i46.tinypic.com/33mmxac.jpg)? Yeah, that’s the trick!

    Oops, or not.

    Trendline rates for February Goldcoast seaway tides:

    Min lo Max hi Mean hi Mean tide
    -7.3 2.3 4.9 1.9

    So, two tide gauges on either side of your sea wall. Both locations failing to illustrate any indication over decades of a 20cm decrease in sea level. A desperate denialist might cling to the minimum low tide values from the Goldcoast Seaway, but aside from the fact that I have detected a possible malfunction of the gauge at low tide (I’m trying to confirm some discrepancies), there’s no evidence at all in the actual tidal data from the two gauges enveloping drongo’s sea wall that there is any long term decreasing trend.

    And this is all before I come back to the original point, which is that raw data cannot be used in this fashion, especially where it is arbitrarily and non-representatively selected, and where it does not compensate for meteorological stochasticity or for astronomical cycles such as the 18.6 year nodal cycle. Oh, and don’t forget that predicted king tide heights are also adjusted for detected sea level rise.

    As an aside, the main reason I included the minimum low data was to illustrate the point about realised tides not coinciding with astronomically predicted tides. I have not yet been able to easily track down the historic predictions for these two gauges, but for low tide this does not matter, as the Minimum Astronomical Low Tide Height is implicit in the very data – MAL height for any site is 0.0 m.

    A quick look at any of the graphs shows how infrequently the realised low tides actually match the astronomical minimum, and one would not expect realised highs to peak coincidentally at the HAT value to any greater frequency.

    Balls’ in your court, drongo. You’re gonna need a great big scientific racket to knock this one back.

    You might be able to manage it – after all, your crowd’s great at manufacturing scientific rackets – but I seriously doubt that you can over-ride the fact of plain primary evidence…

  55. #55 jakerman
    February 19, 2010

    Andrew Bolt:

    >*In fact, the seas have not risen for nearly four years*

    And also [Andrew Bolt](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_10_warming_myths/):

    >MYTH 6 THE SEAS ARE RISING – Wrong. For almost three years, the seas have stopped rising, according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado.

    Incase you were wondering Michael linked to the [Jason 1 satelite data](http://sealevel.colorado.edu/).

    But hang on how can he say the seas are not rising? He is just cherry picking points among the noise to select the answer he wants. How do we know Bolt has picked too short a time range? Because of the results for his tiny snippets are not statistically significant. Bolt has selected tiny periods which hide the incline.

    He pulls the same swifty here:

    > MYTH 1 THE WORLD IS WARMING – Wrong.

    He cannot make either of these claims with statistical significance.

    On the contray, by selecting an interval sufficiently long to distinguish the signal from the noise, ie [15 years or longer](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/) you find a statistically significnt result. And which way is it heading up or down? Seas are rising as are global temperatures.

    But you could see that in the chart at the top of this thread.

  56. #56 Michael
    February 19, 2010

    So, just this week we have Bolt ‘hiding the incline’ and Ackerman’s ‘unless we misquote no one will listen’.

    What a bunch.

  57. #57 Bernard J.
    February 19, 2010

    Mangled Drongo.

    In light of my [demonstration that cyclical phenomena should not be described by linear trendlines](http://i47.tinypic.com/33w356w.jpg), do you intend to retract your posting at [#231](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2286729)?

    It’s just that I’m curious…

  58. #58 spangled drongo
    February 19, 2010

    Bernard,

    Why does your broken Brisbane data end in 2004?

    And your Gold Coast data is only for a short 18 years immediately after the construction of the seaway from ’86 to ’04 and that tide gauge is not now in existence.

    Max tide height is the measurement least affected by increased choke caused by channel dredging but your data showing the lower lows and higher mids and means clearly indicate this increased tide bore.
    However max tide height is easily increased by strong onshore winds and/or low pressure systems which historically have often coincided with summer king tides.

    You don’t produce this data or any current data.

    I have already pointed out that the Jan 31st king tide was accompanied by onshore winds and a low in the Coral Sea yet even with these height producing factors it was still 20 cms below the norm.

  59. #59 Bernard J.
    February 19, 2010

    Drongo [grasps at straws]():

    Why does your broken Brisbane data end in 2004?

    It’s not my data drongo, it’s the state of Queensland’s. For whatever reason they haven’t appended the last 5 years of data, you’d be better served asking them, not me.

    It’s curious though that this is a problem for you. Do you think that something miraculous has happened in the last five years that would counter the several decades of data prior, and that would somehow reinstate your case against the weight of evidence?

    Max tide height is the measurement least affected by increased choke caused by channel dredging but your data showing the lower lows and higher mids and means clearly indicate this increased tide bore.

    Erm, “increased choke caused by channel dredging”? Dregdging is hardly likely to increase “choking” at the point where the Brisbane Bar tide gauge is – if it did then the Brisbane dredging program is doing something very different to the two waterways that I watched being dredged in my youth.

    Tell ya what – I have Google Earth up on another laptop even as I type on this one. How about you describe where the dredging occurred, and tell us what the hydrodynamic consequences were over the different points of Moreton Bay. Remember, I have a direct line to the Queensland Maritime Services Branch now, and I will be sure to test your understanding against their knowledge of the Bar area.

    As far as your comment:

    …your data showing the lower lows and higher mids and means clearly indicate this increased tide bore

    goes, you’re in la-la land.

    Check the January and February height trendlines for the different tide parameters, and you’ll see that they vary in both magnitude and in direction from month to month. Is this because there’s and annual filling and redredging going on, or is it a more general reflection of background meteorological and hydrodynamic stochasticity? Hmmm? The month-to-month variations certainly do not support the bizarre statement that you made.

    And it’s bizarre for another reason too: you admit to mean overall- and high-tide increases, but now they’re due to dredging and not to sea level rise?! Gawd, drongo, do you even know what your story is anymore?!

    Then you said:

    However max tide height is easily increased by strong onshore winds and/or low pressure systems which historically have often coincided with summer king tides.

    which was my freakin’ point way back [at point #85 ](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2260055) on 9 February. It’s especially precious though because you continue:

    You don’t produce this data or any current data.

    when I have actually produced as much data as is easily available to the public for the site that you mentioned, and which provides enough evidence to refute your claims – which are themselves not supported by one single line of data!!!

    Continuing further, you say:

    I have already pointed out that the Jan 31st king tide was accompanied by onshore winds and a low in the Coral Sea yet even with these height producing factors it was still 20 cms below the norm.

    Two points.

    What was the barometric pressure on the historic occasions on which you “observed” the seawall, and what were the meteorological conditions in the Coral Sea then? I keep asking you this bloody question, but you persist in not answering it. Without you being able to demonstrate that this year’s meteorology was less extreme than in previous years, your argument is just smoke in the wind.

    Oh, and for the umpteeth time, the “norm” is a ‘simple’ astronomical calculation – it has little to do with real world expectations beyond what happens under standard gravitational and hydrodynamic conditions.

    Your step in a seawall is not the “norm”, no matter how Cartman blue in the face you become through arguing that it is.

    You’re really struggling with the whole concept of rational science, aren’t you? And whilst we’re on that subject, when are you going to admit your cock-up on the matter of [linear fits to oscillating phenomena](http://i47.tinypic.com/33w356w.jpg)?

  60. #60 spangled drongo
    February 19, 2010

    Bernard, you dope!

    When you increase the “choke”, you enlarge it. I did not use the term “choking”

    That HAT on the 31st of Jan occurred at around 10.00 am and I’m sure you could find the barometric pressure for Brisbane at that time but there was cyclonic activity in the Coral Sea and pressure locally was below normal. There was also good onshore gradient but even disregarding this there was a 20 cm reduction. Without these factors the tide could have been 5 cms lower.

    This isn’t perfectly oscillating phenomena. Why don’t you download the Argo data and reconstruct it? But whether it’s down or up 10 mm per century simply comes under the heading of “nothing to worry about here”.

  61. #61 Michael
    February 19, 2010

    Crikey Beranrd, you really are a goose!

    You’ve downloaded and analaysed all the tidal guage raw data over decades and considered all the tidal factors, when, following in the footsteps of Guru Drongo, you could have just eyeballed a few tides in one spot and pronounced – nothing to worry about, she’ll be right mate!

  62. #62 A. Lurker
    February 19, 2010

    Slink away, Drongo. It’s over.

  63. #63 Bernard J.
    February 19, 2010

    Drongo.

    One increases/decreases a choke (v.)

    One opens/closes a choke (n.)

    …I’m sure you could find the barometric pressure for Brisbane at that time…

    No way buster – I’ve already done too much of your work for you.

    Get off your bone-lazy and completely pig-ignorant arse and do it yourself, if you are so convinced that it is sea level and not meteorology (and/or hydrodynamic alterations) that modified the realised tide height.

    This isn’t perfectly oscillating phenomena.

    It’s not important whether or not it is “perfectly oscillating”. Look at the pattern in the [trajectory of sea level that you posted](http://i45.tinypic.com/5keqdt.jpg), and look at the [point I am making in my reply](http://i47.tinypic.com/33w356w.jpg). Your linear fit to an oscillating pattern provides no information about underlying sea level trends.

    Do you truly believe that it does? If so, explain how this works.

  64. #64 Chris O'Neill
    February 19, 2010

    Blatantly cherry-picking drongo:

    Read it and weep

    Why don’t you check what real scientists say about the Argo dynamic height e.g.:

    Global Comparison of Argo dynamic height with Altimeter sea level anomalies

    Then you can see the results of trend calculations that aren’t fʊcked-up like yours by blatantly cherry-picked start and end points.

Current ye@r *