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

More like this

Andrew claims many things. The ability to search for, find, and verify facts is measured on the "Bolt" scale.

The null point, equating to zero research/fact-finding ability is "One Bolt", and goes up from there. Genuine scientists and most sensible and genuine sceptics are measured in GigaBolts.

The average denialist registers somewhere between one and five Bolts.

Over at the Pure Poison blog at Crikey, we have noted The Bolt Effect, whereby the phenomenon that Bolt is using to demonstrate his arguments immediately behaves contrary to his claims. It has happened with sea-ice extents, temperatures, solar activity, snowfall ( the recent British snowfalls melted the day after Bolt posted the satellite image of Britain covered in snow), and sea-level rise. One of his classics was posting about Antarctica not losing land-ice, in November 2008; the GRACE satellite data in late 2009 showed ice-loss suddenly accelerating in November 2008.
This needs to be shaped up into a paper and presented to "Nature". The man's a menace, and will melt every cube of ice on the planet before he's done.

By Monkeywrench (not verified) on 06 Feb 2010 #permalink

AAPOI, I sent Dr John Church an email last week to advise that the highest astronomical tides in SEQ last weekend were 20 cm lower than the HATs were nearly 50 years ago.
That's about a downward change of THREE times what's shown in that graph. I asked what he thought might explain it. No reply as yet.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 06 Feb 2010 #permalink

20 cm lower than the HATs were nearly 50 years ago.

That's a load of old HATs, drongo.

By Ezzthetic (not verified) on 06 Feb 2010 #permalink

I have also sent two emails to Coastal Sciences asking for their explanation but also no reply.
When you personally observe and measure these king tides against known levels on infrastructure which, if it has moved over time, has only moved downward, then you have to be a bit sceptical of these SLR claims.
Maybe it's a bit like this story and Andrew's being pretty conservative with his 4 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066712/Uncovered-lost-b…

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 06 Feb 2010 #permalink

Once again a single man-in-the-street, using only his common-sense, unequivocally disproves years of work by teams of highly trained scientists.

Well done spangled drongo!!

When the "single-man-in-the-street is asked once again to believe what he is told, not what he experiences, without a reasonable explanation, then it is also reasonable for him to be somewhat sceptical.
If he prefers to believe without looking out the window that's his choice but he should probably keep it to himself.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 06 Feb 2010 #permalink

>*I sent Dr John Church an email last week to advise that the highest astronomical tides in SEQ last weekend were 20 cm lower than the HATs were nearly 50 years ago.*

Please share your evidence for this claim drongo. These guys seem to think different to you.

By Anonymous (not verified) on 06 Feb 2010 #permalink

spangled drongo:

you have to be a bit sceptical of these SLR claims

Yes, you're right, you have to be a bit sceptical of global satellite measurements. A guy measuring sea-level on one pier or whatever has got to be more reliable for measuring changes in global sea-level.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 07 Feb 2010 #permalink

Let's have it, Spangled Drongo, where's your evidence?.

By Dappledwater (not verified) on 07 Feb 2010 #permalink

Yes, what is your evidence oh spangly one?

I must admit I'm finding it difficult to understand how a king tide from 2010 being lower than a king tide from the nineteen sixties indicates anything at all about the measured rise in sea level.

Spangled drongo.

Irrespective of what trajectory you believe the historic pattern of highest astronomical tidal levels to trace, you do actually understand the inherent properties of HAT, don't you - especially over decades and centuries?

And you do understand why your reference to HAT, in the context of global sea level rise over the last century or so, is so completely spurious?

Oh, and in case you are confused (in the fashion of [Betula on Open Thread 39](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2255…)), these questions are sincere, and very much intented to elicit a response that indicates that you actually understand the subject matter than you have raised.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Feb 2010 #permalink

When you've been observing so called HATs as well as normal sea levels, floods, cyclonic surges etc. on a single 80 metre sea wall that was built in 1963 and is still straight and true and the only thing you see is no sign of increase and some sign of decrease over nearly half a century, like I say, there is certain room for scepticism.
It is pretty hard to convince yourself that that graph is telling the story.
Has anyone here criticizing me got a similar fixed data point in or at the sea and doing similar longterm obs and if so, what is your understanding relative to observations?
Or do you all just prefer to believe what you're told?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 07 Feb 2010 #permalink

like I say, there is certain room for scepticism.

and in that case most people who want to understand what's going on would start trying to educate themselves off their own bat about sea level measurement, e.g. google sea level measurement and wouldn't immediately become arrogant.

do you all just prefer to believe what you're told?

I already have read about measuring global sea level with tide guages etc. and it didn't involve being an arrogant pest on a blog.

By Anonymous (not verified) on 07 Feb 2010 #permalink

Has anyone here criticizing me got a similar fixed data point in or at the sea and doing similar longterm obs and if so, what is your understanding relative to observations?

Where's your data?

Spangled Drongo...and the Daily Crap article.

There are many sites around the UK where they are now either under the sea or are further inland. It has little to do with sea levels, but a lot to do with silt, erosion, geology etc.

I remember the Daily Mail claiming that Noahs Ark had been found in Turkey in the 80s.

Stop being a wan*er, sorry I mean drongo.

Well, to be fair, it looks like from early 2005 through mid 2007 there wasn't much change in sea level.

So Bolt's claim is in fact correct ... if you assume that (a) Bolt is a couple of years behind the times, and (b) 2.5 years counts as "nearly four years."

Spangled Drongo,

1963+50=2013, hmm...

Just how did they measure the "HAT" on that seawall built in 1963? Most folks like a 19 year record before calculating a HAT.

Bolt also claims:
"Apocalypse Delayed
Fifty per cent of hype deducted:

Glaciologists at the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography (LEGOS â CNRS/CNES/IRD/Université Toulouse 3) and their US and Canadian colleagues (1) have shown that previous studies have largely overestimated mass loss from Alaskan glaciers over the past 40 years. Recent data from the SPOT 5 and ASTER satellites have enabled researchers to extensively map mass loss in these glaciers, which contributed 0.12 mm/year to sea-level rise between 1962 and 2006, rather than 0.17 mm/year as previously estimated."
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…

Firstly, 50% off 17mm/yr would be 8.5mm/yr, not 12mm/yr. 12mm/yr is 29.6% off 17mm/yr.

Secondly, he forgot to mention "the spectacular acceleration in mass loss since the mid 1990s, corresponding to a contribution of 0.25 to 0.30 mm/year to sea-level rise, is not in question and proves to be a worrying indication of future sea-level rise."

For SLR to be a fact, sea levels have to actually rise and when they haven't done this for nearly 50 years at my datum point then it is reasonable to assume that maybe it's not happening. Particularly when last weeks HAT was 20 cms lower than 1963 and it had some on-shore gradient, swell pattern and low pressure to assist.

BTW anonymous, your Roman fish traps which still look functional seem to confirm my argument more than yours

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 07 Feb 2010 #permalink

>"When you've been observing so called HATs as well as normal sea levels, floods, cyclonic surges etc. on a single 80 metre sea wall that was built in 1963 and is still straight and true and the only thing you see is no sign of increase and some sign of decrease over nearly half a century, like I say, there is certain room for scepticism."

That is a pretty dumb statement!
Large chunks of the South of England are dropping into the sea as a response to the end of the last Ice Age. The North is rising up.
Such movements on a grand scale, do not present any problems to walls, buildings etc. causing deformations or cracks.

There is plenty of room for scepticism of your amateur observations. Single location measurements are meaningless (not that you have produced any evidence in any case).

So Paul, you're aware of tectonic or other continental movements of the scale of 20 cms upwards in 50 years on the alluvial sandy east coast of Australia....

You really know how to put your case. The south coast of England is sinking and the Roman Invasion site is found 2 miles inland yet the seas are still rising...

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 07 Feb 2010 #permalink

>*BTW anonymous, your Roman fish traps which still look functional seem to confirm my argument more than yours*

Huh, why don't you ask Kurt Lambeck what tide phase it was during to photo?

By Anonymous (not verified) on 07 Feb 2010 #permalink

>*For SLR to be a fact, sea levels have to actually rise and when they haven't done this for nearly 50 years at my datum point then it is reasonable to assume that maybe it's not happening. Particularly when last weeks HAT was 20 cms lower than 1963 and it had some on-shore gradient, swell pattern and low pressure to assist.*

Close your eyes drongo and pretend you haven't [been debunked](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…).

In any one year sea levels are influenced pretty strongly by El Nino and La Nina. Under normal conditions the sea level on the west side of the tropical and subtropical Pacific is about 50 centimetres higher than the east side, because of the easterly trade winds through the tropics which push water towards the west side.

During an El Nino, the easterlies slacken off, the sea level difference lessens, and sea levels are higher than normal on the east side of the Pacific and lower than normal on the west side. During a La Nina the reverse is true. In global averages this all cancels out.

All this means that in an El Nino year (like this one), sea levels on the east coast of Australia can be anything up to 10-15 centimetres below normal, and in a La Nina year (like the last two) they can be up to 10-15 centimetres above normal.

This also explains why a lot of Australian stations show a stronger sea level trend over the last 20 years than the global averages do - there were several El Nino years at the start of the period, and a strongish La Nina towards the end. Rising or sinking land doesn't have much impact on any of the Australian monitoring stations except Cocos Island.

Thanks for that Blair. With el Nino being present the net effect of negative 20 cm could be due to it and the noticeably lighter trade winds combined. But what explains the lack of rise for nearly 50 years?

And also why haven't we had a Coral Sea cyclone cross the coast south of the Tropic of Capricorn since 1976 when we used to get several a year prior to that?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

>*what explains the lack of rise for nearly 50 years?*

Perhaps has something to do with your claim of lack of rise being bollocks.

By Anonymous (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

...when they haven't done this for nearly 50 years at my datum point then it is reasonable to assume that maybe it's not happening.

Haven't had a tornado at my datum point for a hundred years. Therefore I conclude that it is reasonable to assume that they are not happening anywhere in the world.

Aside from your assinine logic drongo, you still haven't demonstrated that you actually understand what an 'astronomical highest tide' is, and why throwing around this fancy-sounding bit of techno-jargon is completely bogus in the context of sea-level rise.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

Anonymous, you choose to believe bed-time stories, I prefer to believe what I see. Your bed-time stories don't fit with the real world.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

"Haven't had a tornado at my datum point for a hundred years."

No Bernie, but I do have the tide there every day. Spare us the "scientific" logic, please.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo said: >"You really know how to put your case. The south coast of England is sinking and the Roman Invasion site is found 2 miles inland yet the seas are still rising..."

Yes I do know my case dick brain.

As recent as WWI the port near the Roman invasion site at Richborough was used used for large ships.
There was also a roll on roll off ferry operating at the port. It was dredged at that time but quickly silted up after the war, just south of the area were salt marshes.

The changes in the area are largely due to economics, war, silting and reclamation. All within the last 100 years.

Over longer periods most of the coastline in the same area has done the opposite, with villages and towns drowned because the sea has removed land.

A little map for the wan*er calling themselves drongo:

http://www.ecastles.co.uk/wantsum.html

Note that the Wantsum channel silted up. eg. Thanet has not increased in size, which is what would have happened if sea levels had dropped.

SD's single data point is more important than the combination of all data points? Maybe it's CMI - coastal mud island effect - and that location needs to be stricken from the record! Or the data (oh please no) subject to adjustment.
Come on, extrapolation from one data point (anecdotal, highest king tides only and unreferenced) to imply all data points must show the same doesn't even qualify as amateur science.

By Ken Fabos (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

Thanks Hugh,

But of course the true facts are more like the details:

"The smallest (low estimate) and largest (high estimate) differ by 60 cm by the 2080s (Table 1). Furthermore, there is also uncertainty regarding regional variations in climate-induced sea level changes, occurring because the warming and expansion of ocean water is not uniform across the globe. These regional differences can vary by up to +/-50 % of the change in the global average. For sensitivity studies, the advice remains (as stated in the UKCIP02 Scientific Report) to consider changes in sea level for each scenario that are approximately +/-50 % of those shown in Table 1."

You Doltoids need to get out more, pay attention and stop believing in hockey sticks.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

For SLR to be a fact, sea levels have to actually rise and when they haven't done this for nearly 50 years at my datum point then it is reasonable to assume that maybe it's not happening.

In other words, SLR is not a fact, because you just won't accept it's a fact. The data clearly shows a rise, but it wouldn't matter what data we cite, you'd still deny it. That's hard-core.

Joseph, with "scientific" logic like that you could probably get a job with Bernie.

I should have told BJ that HAT is what the BoM call it, not my term. It's just the old twice-a-year king tide here but it is the best visual evidence I know of of possible on-going local SLR particularly over an average lifetime if you wish to take note.
Anyone know of a better way to visually verify SLR?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

Sorry janet, but those islanders don't have a freeboard problem, only deckspace. But it makes a great story especially if you enjoy ignoring science.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

drongo:

For (global average) SLR to be a fact, sea levels have to actually rise and when they haven't done this for nearly 50 years at my datum point then it is reasonable to assume that maybe it's not happening.

It is much more reasonable to assume that you're incompetent or lying or both.

You Doltoids need to get out more

You should take your own advice.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

Spangled drongo: O.K., let's put your claims to the normal test that is applied to scientific work - let's see your data - i.e. times and heights of high water over the last 50 years at your "datum point". If you can't do this, don't make the claim and don't waste everybody's time.

By John Hunter (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo, its obvious that you have a great deal of experience of "ignoring science", but you ort be aware that we can also spot your projection of your own erroneous tactics onto others.

Now to help you break your delusion, I ask you, who is linking to the scientifically derived and verifyed data? And whos is projecting global conclusions from a single (unpublished, unverified) location?

And shorter Drongo:

>Islanders going underwater don't compare with my data location. My data location is "more equal" than all the inundated islanders and "more equal" than the global mean sea level rise.

John Hunter,
It is as I explained, an 80 metre reinforced concrete sea wall which is still level and true, built on an alluvial sand island on estuary frontage in 1963. It has a step which we built at existing king tide levels which those tides reached in 1963. The '74 floods and others exceeded this step considerably but none of the king tides [the highest tides that occur midsummer and midwinter] ever have and recently are not even reaching the step. The latest one touted by the BoM on the 31/1/10 [9 days ago] was 20 cms [at least] below this step.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

And Drongo,

Shouldn't you convince other denialist of your case? What hope is there of your spreading you disifnormation past this point if you can't even get Andrew Bolt to push it?

Why won't even Bolt take up your 50 years of non-rising sealevel?

Spangled drongo: if you think Post 49 is what passes for scientific data then you have a problem. If the IPCC Assessments Reports tried to pass this off as data, it would be laughed out of court by the likes of Bolt, Plimer and Monckton. When you say "those tides reached in 1963" or "the '74 floods and others" (which others?) "exceeded this step", did you keep a written log of these observations or are they from memory?

If you want people to take you seriously, let's have "times and heights of high water over the last 50 years at your datum point", as I asked for. Oh - and if you have some meteorological data which might indicate the possibility of positive or negative surges, that would help too.

By John Hunter (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

Exemplory denial Drongo,

Keep your eyes squeezed shut, and keep building the case-file of denial.

John Hunter,

Have I claimed these obs to be a scientific paper? I am passing on to you "experts" some of my personal observations of SLR over the last half century. They are what I have seen in my own backyard as opposed to what you "experts" are telling me and I know what I'd rather believe. I have asked if any of you have made any of your own similar long-term obs but it seem not so you have nothing else to go by.
I'm sure though that you have noticed that one of the most singular properties of water is for it to find its own level and so when I get alarmist predictions about SLR around the world it is always worthwhile to check and make sure that I am not drowning.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

I know what I'd rather believe

So do I, but I also know that it's better to trust science than my personal beliefs or anecdotal evidence.

Drongo cannot argue that is data is uptod standard and hence conceeds the point:

>*Have I claimed these obs to be a scientific paper?*

Glad we can all now seem to agre that Drongo's supposed single data location and measurement processes are not upto scientific standard. Which is the exact point that John Hunter was making.

Yet Drongo's delusion persists:

>*"I am passing on to you "experts" some of my personal observations of SLR over the last half century. They are what I have seen in my own backyard as opposed to what you "experts" are telling me and I know what I'd rather believe. I have asked if any of you have made any of your own similar long-term obs but it seem not so you have nothing else to go by.*

Plainly Drongo is delusional, he's data is not upto standard. He's claiming to measure HAT not SLR. And he is not unique. People all around the world are making their observations, and many in the Cartaret islands are noticing a trend that conflicts with Drongo's special "more equal" observation.

Frankly I wouldn't trust Drongo's measurement based of this performance here. But that is by the by as as single location by itself cannot represent global SLR.

John, what is it about personal observations over half a century compared to hockey sticks that you don't understand?

Tim, that link on U of Col SLR graph isn't coming up but I'm sure you can find it.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

janet, king tides or HATs or whatever the BoM likes to call them are the highest indicator of SLR. If they fail to show SLR the nothing will. You're not doing yourself any favous by continuing this discussion.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

John, what is it about personal observations over half a century compared to hockey sticks that you don't understand?

Plimer was hung out to dry when he said it "seemed hotter" when he was a child. Your personal observations, unless you've measured the temperatures daily for half a century and therefore could prove useful to the global data, are worthless.

I feel sorry that you can't understand the hockey stick. Here it is in all its validated glory.

Drongo falls back into more delusion:

>*John, what is it about personal observations over half a century compared to hockey sticks that you don't understand?*

Drongo you've just told John that you can't present 50 years of data of scientific standard. You don't have the "over half century" of "personal observations" required.

Others do have the data required. Many of these others have actually collected the data of the require detial for decade upon decade. They are not just making delusional claims like you are.

Spangled Drongo (Post 55): no - I wasn't asking for a scientific paper - I was asking for scientific DATA. What I got was (very brief) anectodal evidence. Now, scientists may use anectodal evidence when there is no other data around, but in the case of sea-level rise there is ample data available. We don't have to depend on information like yours.

If you want to either (a) provide some support for your "observations", or (b) try and understand your "observations" better, have you tried looking at the data from the nearest tide gauge to your location?

Incidentally, in true denialist tradition, you haven't answered my earlier question: "did you keep a written log of these observations or are they from memory?"

By John Hunter (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

Incidentally, in true denialist tradition, you haven't answered my earlier question: "did you keep a written log of these observations or are they from memory?"

I asked for his data earlier, and unless I'm mistaken, it's not been given.

I want *raw* data, photostats or scans of the paper sheets the data's been entered on (such as GHCN makes available).

'fess up or shut up.

I am passing on to you "experts" some of my personal observations of SLR over the last half century. They are what I have seen in my own backyard as opposed to what you "experts" are telling me and I know what I'd rather believe.

I've also seen you beating your wife and raping your daughter over the last 50 years ...

But I have no data.

Yet, you *must* believe me.

I think we need to FOI spangled drongo. He's withholding data!

>_O the drongo is a stupid bird,_

>_Picking cherries as it flies._

>_We ask it easy questions._

>_It tells us easy lies._

90 years of tidal gauge measurements in [New York Harbor](http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/2009/articles/climate-change-sea-level). One can easily find several individual months in the 1920s where the measurements are higher than
several individual months in the 2000s. Does that mean sea level in New York Harbor has gone down?

>_O the drongo is a stupid bird..._

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

Maybe the drongo doesn't understand the factors influencing HAT's and how 2 widely seperated data points might not tell him what he desperately wishes to believe it does.

You've all got no idea how impressed I am by your collective logic so I'll ask just one more time [glutton that I am]: as a hypothetical, if you saw only no and negative SLR at one datum point of the worlds oceans for nearly half a century, and no-one was telling you different, what conclusion would you draw?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

Just received a reply from the principal scientist, coastal div. and he sent me a tide plot to confirm that Sunday, Jan. 31 was the HAT and it was in fact higher than anticipated.
He did not have any benchmarks going back very far timewise and claims he will contact me regarding inspection.
I could let you know what happens if anyone's interested.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

Hmmmm....
"if you saw only no and negative SLR at one datum point of the worlds oceans for nearly half a century, and no-one was telling you different, what conclusion would you draw?"

I think the conclusion *I* would draw would be that I was dealing with an idiot.

What conclusion do *you* think I should draw from that?

Perhaps if you are capable of re-writing that sentence so it actually makes sense, my conclusion would be fourfold:

- my measurements are very imprecise.

- my record-keeping is very imprecise.

- my data is far too sparse for any sort of a conclusion.

- maybe I'll check the CSIRO website to see what the paid professionals who use satellites to measure sea level have to say about it?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

If the IPCC Assessments Reports tried to pass this off as data, it would be laughed out of court by the likes of Bolt, Plimer and Monckton.

Indeed, as was done with the interviews of mountain climbers about glaciers. This is one of the problems with people like drongo. They're incapable of looking at what they claim from someone else's point of view. It's a form of arrogance. Drongo should realize that data needs corroboration before it can gain general acceptance. Lack of corroboration was what threw out the previous highest temperature record in Australia, as Blair Trewin cites in this page:

"There are also numerous extreme high temperatures which have been recorded prior to about 1910 using non-standard instrumentation, most notably a reading of 53.1 at Cloncurry in January 1889. It is likely that this will be struck from the official record in the near future. A discussion of the evidence behind this may be found in:

Trewin, B.C. (1997). Another look at Australia's highest temperature. Aust.Met.Mag. 46. 251-256."

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

VW,
That idiot of course would have to be you as YOU are the person in the hypothetical.

C O'N,
What do you know about any corroboration I might or might not have?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

>*as a hypothetical, if you saw only no and negative SLR at one datum point of the worlds oceans for nearly half a century, and no-one was telling you different, what conclusion would you draw?*

That I didn't have enough data to gauge global trends. And that I should ask people who could access to more information.

But the hypothetical is not matched to your case drongo, you have not tracked SLR, you've told us you can't even produce that data from your one location. Instead you have a few HAT datum points. And you also have access to better information than your inadequate data.

drongo:

You've all got no idea how impressed I am by your collective logic so I'll ask just one more time [glutton that I am]: as a hypothetical, if you saw only no and negative SLR at one datum point of the worlds oceans for nearly half a century, and no-one was telling you different, what conclusion would you draw?

That anyone trying to assign significance to 2 'random' samples is a statistical ninny.

"That anyone trying to assign significance to 2 'random' samples is a statistical ninny."

I didn't realise doltoids were quite this thick. When I'm getting two king tides a year for 47 years.....

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

Okay, at further risk of being lumped in under Paul's rather charming soubriquet of "w*nker" then, I'll go a step further by pointing out [to everyone] that shoreline processes in England, at the coastal cell and sub-cell resolution, are currently being quantified in a series of Shoreline Management Plans.

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/104939.aspx

Thus it is possible (or soon will be) to find out whether any particular stretch of coastline [or any data location thereon] should be exhibiting stasis, retreat or advance. They're a useful resource!

drongo:

I didn't realise doltoids were quite this thick. When I'm getting two king tides a year for 47 years.....

And you're looking at just two of them.

1. you don't seem to understand the factors affecting the heights of spring tides

2. you don't seem to understand stats

No wonder you're spellbound by Moncktons drivel.

John Hunter, It is as I explained, an 80 metre reinforced concrete sea wall which is still level and true, built on an alluvial sand island on estuary frontage in 1963. It has a step which we built at existing king tide levels which those tides reached in 1963. The '74 floods and others exceeded this step considerably but none of the king tides [the highest tides that occur midsummer and midwinter] ever have and recently are not even reaching the step. The latest one touted by the BoM on the 31/1/10 [9 days ago] was 20 cms [at least] below this step.

OK. I'm no expert on tides or anything of the sort, but I doubt this method, at a single location, can detect a 20 cm global rise in sea level over a 100 year period (or 10 cm over 50 years.)

Spangled Drongo.

You have had various lessons on tidal physics and recording hammered into your head, but I note that it probably hasn't stuck, because you are yet to respond to my repeated questioning about your understanding of such.

So, to nudge you along somewhat, I will ask you what you understand the concepts of syzygy, perigee and apogee, (and particularly perihelion, aphelion, pericynthion and apocynthion) to be, and how their periodicities and their relative distance fluctuations relate to the cycle of tide heights over time. If it's burning your brain, you might like to take a basic lesson [here](http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles4.html).

Creeping closer to my original questioning, you might like to tell us what the barometric pressure was on your date in 1963, and compare it with 31 January this year. You might also consider explaining to us what the seas and the swells in the west Pacific Ocean were doing on these two occasions.

I note that [Michael](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…) and [Chris S](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…) have also pressed you on this point. If all of this spoon-feeding isn't actually resulting in something finally registering in your brain, then you should actively read about [factors affecting tidal heights](http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles5.html): the last paragraph especially might help... Alternatively you could read [this](http://worldtidesandcurrents.com/Extratidal.pdf).

Further to Luminous Beauty's [posting at #70](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), you might also like to ponder the heights of spring and autumn tides that are [predicted, by the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, for the next several decades](http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/hilo.php?port=avonmouth), and how they compare with your 2-point 'dataset' (and I use that term generously). If you want something closer to home, play with our own inestimable [BoM's tide widget](http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/tides/).

Most of all, you should seriously think about conceding that you have completely cocked up your interpretation of tidal science, and how it relates to sea level rise.

And once we have that out of the way, we might start on your abysmal understanding of climatology...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Feb 2010 #permalink

The drongo:

C O'N, What do you know about any corroboration I might or might not have?

I know that you're keeping us in suspense. Why don't you just get lost?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 09 Feb 2010 #permalink

Hugh:
>Okay, at further risk of being lumped in under Paul's rather charming soubriquet of "w*nker" then, I'll go a step further by pointing out [to everyone] that shoreline processes in England, at the coastal cell and sub-cell resolution, are currently being quantified in a series of Shoreline Management Plans.

Indeed, our local draft plan is available and undergoing public consultation until 23 April.

Anything else I should know?

Spangled Drongo, you stick to a single (anecdotal) data point but look no further afield. One location isn't enough - there are variations in tides all the time - just from varying air pressure, wind direction and strength. Storm surges can result in differences in tide levels far in excess of the few milimetres a year rise in sea level. I expect that high and low tides - all of them from as many locations as possible go into estimating sea level changes. Let's see links to all the tidal gauge data available. Best to include sea level data from satellites as well... put it all together in the form of a graph. Oh yeah, we get the graph at the top of the page. But at one place, king tides haven't shown obvious rise so the combined data that graph is based on must be wrong? Come on SD, that is not a credible position.

By Ken Fabos (not verified) on 09 Feb 2010 #permalink

Now that my computer is back I'll point out for those not paying attention that 47 years of obs of king tides winter and summer have shown no increase in SL. In earlier years the tides reached the top of the step but did not exceed it. The more recent tides have not done that and the HAT of 31/1/10 [which was higher than expected] was at least 20cms below the top of the step when according to some predictions and satellite measurements it should have been a similar distance above. For O'Neill's benefit, this has also been witnessed by others.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 09 Feb 2010 #permalink

Ken, if you watch one point of the ocean for 47 years and there IS genuine SLR, what do you think happens?
I'll give you a tip, It don't go down.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 09 Feb 2010 #permalink

It's come to my notice that the paper I link to in #83 only gives the draft to those unsubscribed to the journal.

I'll copy & paste the part of the introduction that I was referring to:

"A rational evaluation of marine climate at any site would include extreme value analyses of sustained water levels. In principle, this is classical extreme value analysis. However, there are some unique aspects of extreme value analysis for sustained water level. The interaction of simultaneous storm and astronomical tides is an important consideration. Storm tides, defined here to include wave setup contributions, may lead to higher than normal tides and also lower than normal tides."

Hence my (unanswered) question to spangled drongo: What were the weather conditions during the King tides you refer to?

Just to nail the point home, this from the Conclusion: "The dynamics of storm tides can lead to sustained increases in tide elevation and, at different stages of the storm tide evolution, also to sustained decreases in tide elevation. Abnormally high tides are experienced when sustained storm-forced increases correspond with predicted high waters in the local astronomical tide. Similarly, abnormally low tides are experienced when sustained storm-forced decreases correspond with predicted low waters in the local astronomical tide. Long-duration historical observations of tidal elevations are available at many coastal locations, and these observations will include observations of abnormally high and low tides."

Drongo,

Bernard tried to give you some more explicit tips about spring tides, but I see you are determined to ignore any of our efforts to reduce your ignorance.

'Militant idiocy' as some have termed it.

Paul

I inserted ... [to everyone] ... in that message because I had made the assumption that you would already be aware of the SMP process, but that (whilst sniping at drongo) you had simply chosen not to illustrate to others the standard of the geomorphological analyses which currently underpin coastal planning in the UK. Why not count to 10 or something, it wasn't a personal attack

Ti: Proof of no change in mean global sea level based on two observations on a sea wall
Au: S. Drongo
J: J. Oceanog
Abstract:

47 years of observations of king tides winter and summer have shown no increase in SL. In earlier years the tides reached the top of the step but did not exceed it. The more recent tides have not done that and the HAT of 31/1/10 [which was higher than expected] was at least 20cms below the top of the step when according to some predictions and satellite measurements it should have been a similar distance above.

Congratulations on your impending publication drongo: your mother must be so proud.

So, seeing that you are persisting in your ignorance of the [questions I put to you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), perhaps you will address a few others.

  1. Sitting on your sea wall for 47 years, how large were the waves lapping against the side?
  2. Following on from (1), how did you establish where, in relation to the step, the actual mean level occurred?
  3. What insight inspired you to ensure that you were present exactly at the peak of the tides in 1963, and for all subsequent observations?
  4. How did you control for the subtidal sediment dynamics that frequently occur after the construction of sea walls, and which directly impact on the height of the tidal surge in the local area?
  5. Given the emphatic and controversial nature of your claims, where are your signed and dated log books?
  6. Why won't you address the
    directly relevant questions
    put to you previously?
By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Feb 2010 #permalink

Chris S. I have left out the king tides when there were large storm surges and there have been a couple that occurred during such times causing short term flooding from cyclonic surges, huge rainfall and strong winds. The Jan 1974 king tide was one such but in the main the king tides come and go in reasonable weather providing good fishing and good indications on SLs.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 09 Feb 2010 #permalink

SD - so the tidal gauges everywhere else and the satellites are wrong? And, yes a single location can show different to the average of all the others, just as you can find temperature stations that have shown cooling trends when the average of all temperature stations has shown warming.

By Ken Fabos (not verified) on 09 Feb 2010 #permalink

Ken, c'mon now, temps are just a little more chaotic over 47 years than sea levels. Also I didn't think that satellites agreed with tide gauges. That tide gauge at Port Arthur supposedly shows about 15 cms rise in 169 years. The Satellites show that much in about one tenth of the time.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 09 Feb 2010 #permalink

Chris O'Neill @ 75. 50 deg c [about 122 f] was a not uncommon occurrence in parts of western Qld in the 1950s. This was the temp at which birds often dropped dead in flight and many people witnessed that phenomenon. I drove a wartime Ford Blitz Buggy in that temp without any problems [when it got hotter the fuel would vapourise]. It was generally hotter in the 1880s and it would be quite possible to achieve those old records. The people who kept those records did so diligently and while they didn't have stevenson screens they almost always kept their thermometers in a constant position [usually under a verandah near the waterbag] which was arguably cooler than a stevenson screen. It suits the warmers agenda at the BoM to toss out all the pre 1910 data on this pretext because 1910 was a cooler period and it makes their graphs look more dramatic but it is fradulent.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

That tide gauge at Port Arthur supposedly shows about 15 cms rise in 169 years. The Satellites show that much in about one tenth of the time.

Huh?!

Satellites "show" a rise of 15 cm in 16.9 years?! That's almost 1.0 cm per annum.

Please give a reference for that pearler!

So, what's your story? A decline of 20 cm in almost 50 years, or an increase of 0.9 centimeter per year?

Do you actually know what it is that you're bullshitting about?

Oh, and you might like to [read this](http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf).

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

Sorry about that mistake. The Satellites are telling us only FOUR times as much SLR as the tide gauge, not ten.

I must have been getting it all confused with 8 storey Tim and 100 metres Robin.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

Climategate Climategate Climategate Climategate
HIDE THE DECLINE
HIDE THE DECLINE
HIDE THE DECLINE
Pachy's Mills and Boon Novel, titilating science!

Ken, c'mon now, temps are just a little more chaotic over 47 years than sea levels.

That's completely made up, isn't it drongo?

Bernard, you "experts" are telling us all sorts of alarmist stuff wrt SLR, from very little to impossible amounts. If you choose not to understand about looking at SL on a near daily basis over a long time against a known fixed point and not seeing ANY of this then I can't help you any further.

Joseph, show us how SLs are more chaotic than temps.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo, don't be so thick.

Surely you know about sample size?

You know, how the greater your sample size, the more likely it is that your sample is a reflection of reality?

It's really important in a time series - signal vs. noise and all that.

So, if someone was trying to make claims about trends in a very noisey time series, let's say on sea-level, and let's further say they did so based one recent spring tide compared to one other 40-odd years ago in one location, and went on to suggest that this was more meaningful in eliciting the trend than the constant tide and sea-level measures conducted over a wide geopraphical area, then we might conclude that they are either barking mad or terminally incompetent.

Joseph, show us how SLs are more chaotic than temps.

Ah, the old "shifting the burden of proof." I don't really have to answer that.

But it just so happens that I've been looking at some SL data. There are a few data sets publicly available, including one reconstruction from the Red Sea that spans 380,000 years. These series are just as noisy as temperature series from Vostok.

And guess what? There's a strong (read: undeniable) association between temperatures and SL, with SL lagging temperatures by several thousand years, AFAICT.

It's 120 meters change since the last glacial maximum. Do you think this is significant or not?

So I was wondering, drongo, are you denying that temperatures result in major SL change, or are you denying the shift in temperatures? Or both?

Michael, how come you can't understand that this is not just two comparisons 47 years apart? There must be a special school you blokes go to. I introduced this observation here as a point of interest and as I said earlier I have since received a request from a govt scientist to pursue it further because as chief scientist he considers it salient. It tends to show who the true deniers are.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

Joseph, there's no need to go back 380,000 years old chap. you may have observed in your doubtless broad experience with the present world that temps vary extremely simply with latitude whereas SLs vary very little world wide. At any given time SLs are much less chaotic than temperatures.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo,

You're the drongo who thought that a single tidal observation was so compelling.

Militant idiocy strikes again.

I have since received a request from a govt scientist to pursue it further because as chief scientist he considers it salient

Could you post this fascinating piece of correspondence?

Not the whole thing, just the bit where "govt scientist" requests you "to pursue it further".

I need a laugh.

>*Michael, how come you can't understand that this is not just two comparisons 47 years apart?*

Because you haven't provided the data for anything? Could that be the answer Drongo?

You've mentioned how these two data points have impressed you so much, but you haven't compared them alonside all the other data points from 47 year at your single site.

You've been asked repeatedly for the whole data set, including times, dates etc. You either can't or won't produce them. Instead you keep insisting on making conclusions about the whole globe based on your inadequate descrption of a few data points from one single site.

By Anonymous (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo:

For O'Neill's benefit, this has also been witnessed by others.

You didn't get the point. Corroboration means corroboration with independent measuring stations, such as nearby tide gauges. Just tell us the nearest tide gauge to your observation and we can check if it corroborates.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo:

Chris O'Neill @ 75. 50 deg c [about 122 f] was a not uncommon occurrence in parts of western Qld in the 1950s.

Sure. If you say so. Pity there have never been ANY reliable recordings of 50°C in Queensland.

This was the temp at which birds often dropped dead in flight and many people witnessed that phenomenon.

So they were flying at 50°C and didn't care what effect the heat had on them? Were they stupid old drongos like you?

I drove a wartime Ford Blitz Buggy in that temp without any problems [when it got hotter the fuel would vapourise].

You've got your logic the wrong way around, drongo. If you want to imply that it was 50°C then the evidence you need is that the fuel vaporised, not that it didn't.

It was generally hotter in the 1880s and it would be quite possible to achieve those old records.

Sure. If you say so.

The people who kept those records did so diligently and while they didn't have stevenson screens they almost always kept their thermometers in a constant position [usually under a verandah near the waterbag] which was arguably cooler than a stevenson screen.

They may have kept their thermometers in a beer crate but I wouldn't rely on them never running out out beer. It was around 48°C after all. Pretty hot, but not the same as 53°C.

It suits the warmers agenda at the BoM to toss out all the pre 1910 data on this pretext

So what did they do with all your 1950s data? Pretend they were in beer crates?

because 1910 was a cooler period and it makes their graphs look more dramatic but it is fradulent.

The only frauds are the stupid old drongos who peddle their science denial claptrap.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

If I chose to provide you doltoids with my life's diaries your oh-so-evident open minds would not accept anything I had written and the same goes for any corroboration I might provide.

O'Neill, the "world average" temperature prior to 1910 was known to be considerably hotter and your understanding and smart-arse remarks about common western experiences simply destroys your credibility.

You blokes are in absolute denial about what's going on around you.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

Bernard, you "experts" are telling us all sorts of alarmist stuff wrt SLR, from very little to impossible amounts. If you choose not to understand about looking at SL on a near daily basis over a long time against a known fixed point and not seeing ANY of this then I can't help you any further.

Drongo, you are just a walking intellectual disaster area, aren't you. Let's do this the slow and hard way.

First, "experts" measuring the contemporary sea level rise are very firm about the rate of same. You can look at the graphic at the top of this page, or any of thousands of others available from various scientific organisations around the world, and they will all agree very strongly.

The "alarmist" stuff that you raise in your paragraph is a completely different kettle of fish - you are referring to the estimates of sea level rise anticipated in response to various ice-melting scenarios. The thing is, for any particular scenario, most estimates are also very precise: the variability comes in when one compares, say, the sea level rise occurring from the melting of Greenland ice, to the melting of Antarctic ice.

The fact that you are confabulating sea level rise, as measured to date, with predictions about what will happen in the future under different scenarios, only emphasises your logical depauperacy, your scientific ignorance, and your propensity to misrepresent the fundamentals of a subject.

Moving on...

Let's have a closer look at your bluff:

If you choose not to understand about looking at SL on a near daily basis over a long time against a known fixed point and not seeing ANY of this then I can't help you any further.

The only reason that you can't help me, or anyone else, any further is because you have nothing to offer in the way of understanding, or of evidenciary substance.

Consider, for example, that you are now claiming that you "look[ed] at SL on a near daily basis over a long time against a known fixed point". Are you seriously telling us tht you have spent "nearly every day", from 1963 to date, logging your sea wall tide heights?

That would be extraordinary. And unbelievable, because you would have mentioned it way before now - remember that your [initial post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…) only mentioned a comparison of 31 January this year with an unspecified data (a big problem for tidal comparisons, by the way) in 1963.

But let's assume that you have somehow had the opportunity to "observe" tides along this seawall for "a long time", whether 47 years or somewhat less. There are many questions about your procedural operation that needs to be addressed before your data can be accepted, and thus far you have refused to address the questions I asked, in this regard, at [post #12](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), [post #85](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), and [post #94](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…).

Starting with the concept of 'highest astronomical tide'... You do understand that the height of an astronomical 'high' tide at a particular site varies over weeks, and over months, and over years? Astronomical tide height is dependent, amongst other things, upon the position of the moon in its pericynthion/apocynthion cycle, and the Earth/Moon distance at pericynthion and at apocynthion. Play with the [Lunar Perigee and Apogee Calculator](http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html) at fourmilab.ch and you will see immediately that the moon was closer to the earth in January 1963 than it was this year.

Oops.

Of course, your problem is compounded somewhat by the relative position of the earth in the perihelion/aphelion cycle, with respect to the pericynthion/apocynthion cycle. Astronomical tide height will also be dependent to a small extent upon the time of day that the perigees/agogees are occurring - time-of-day determines where your site of interest is with respect to the moon when pericynthion/apocynthion occurs.

A nit-picker might point out that the tilt of the planet's orbital axis over a precession cycle will also affect the astronomical tide height a site, but we can probably leave that factor out for now. Suffice that it is mentioned for relative completeness.

So, after all of this, I have a question for you. What was the predicted astronomical high-tide height for your unspecified day in 1963, and specifically, how does it compare with the value for 31 January 2010?

The question, whilst important, is rendered almost moot though without a raft of other important variables being taken into account.

Let's start with you "seawall observations". Using the tidal standards of the [Australia/New Zealand Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping](http://www.icsm.gov.au/icsm/tides/tides_msl.html), did you observe the [Instrument Specifications for High Precision Sea Level Monitoring Stations](http://www.icsm.gov.au/icsm/publications/pctmsl/Technical_Specification…)? Heck, did you even establish a [decent tide gauge](http://www.icsm.gov.au/icsm/tides/SP9/AustralianTidesManual_Section2.pdf), one that would be robust to the lapping waves that I [pestered you about at #94](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…)?

Assuming that you didn't actually use a tide gauge, what quality assurance did you conduct to ensure the operational consistency of your sea wall. Sure, it's "[still straight and true](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…)", but upon what substrate was it constructed? Do you know how much your "straight and true" sea wall might have sunk under its own weight over 50 years, especially if it's built on sediment or on deformable rock? Such sinking would of course run counter to your claimed "observations", and result in an increasing tide-height bias, apparently 'diluting' my argument, but I mention this in the interest of impartial thoroughness.

And what eustatic changes have occurred to the coastline in general over those 50 years?

As I said [at #94](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), sea walls have a propensity for altering currents, and thus the patterns of sediment deposition and consequently the pattern of tidal surging. How have you compensated for alterations to the surge regime over your 47-year "observation" period?

I will repeat too my question about your timing of "observations". Tides shift back by about an hour every day (as any fisherman or SCUBA diver will tell you), so your "observations" on a "[nearly daily basis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…)" stretch credulity - how many people would return to a site an hour later every day to make such observations?! And if you didn't return an hour later every day, then your peeping at a step in a sea wall is even more meaningless than it already is.

It is worth reiterating too my questioning about your recording of data, and especially my repeated questioning about barometric pressure, and about general weather over the ocean in the region. Barometric pressure has a profound effect on tide height, and oceanic weather determines the seas also. Heck, even the speed and direction of the prevailing winds will impact upon tide height. Did you control for any of these factors?!

Let me guess, you're strictly a "raw data" kind of guy. 'Adjustments' would be akin to IPCC 'misrepresentation of the data'...

I have tried hard to drum into your head that many factors infuence tides. As this message does not seem to permeate your skull and reach your brain, I will try once more, and to that end I would point you to [this excellent summary](http://www.icsm.gov.au/icsm/tides/doco/Port_Tidal_Predictions-V0.4.pdf) on the ICSM site linked above. If you won't believe me, perhaps you'll believe it if it comes from the horse's mouth, even though the horse is a governmental committee of scientific lapdogs.

Or are you going to push the claim that there is as great a conspiracy in tidal measurement and in sea level monitoring, as there is in climatology?

Seriously drongo, you've made a dog's breakfast of your claims about tide heights, and the sooner you admit that you have cocked it up worse than a rutting bull elephant on viagra, the sooner you can put your humiliation behind you and begin to hope that we might forget your incompetence.

Of course, we won't forget, but for your own peace of mind it would serve you well to raise the white flag and pretend that we might.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

....but....but.."it was witnessed by others"! - that's corroboration!!

Shorter Drongo:

I don't want to say that I don't have any data set, so I will imply that the data is in my life's diaries, which are private. So whether I have the data or not is something I'm keeping to myself.

What you need to do is believe me without the data. That you don't believe me without seeing my data (which may or may not exists) in evidence that *"[y]ou blokes are in absolute denial about what's going on around you."*

Oops.

I just realised that I said [at #115](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…)

the moon was closer to the earth in January 1963 than it was this year

when I meant to say

the moon was further from the earth in January 1963 than it was this year.

The original "oops" in #115 stands exactly as it did though. I'll leave drongo to figure out why...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

What you need to do is believe me without the data.

Yep, this is why I asked for it a few days back.

Drongo, you're a lying turd, you have no data.

Doltoids, of course I haven't got any data. Neither has anyone who disagrees with you lot.

California 1913 56.7c, Libya 1922 58c, Israel 1942 54c, Australia 1889 53c etc.

That's not data, someone just wrote that down!

I must ask hockey stick Mick how he does it.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo it's not that you lack data, it's that you don't have a clue.

Bernard has spoon fed you some relevant info on tides. It should be enough for you to understand why your suggestions are so misconceived.

While on data, did you know that in addition to it being so much hotter way back when, CO2 was also higher! Chemical measurements of CO2 showed levels of 400-500 in some places at some times. No wonder it was so hot!!

Michael, ya mean I've got data? Is it as good as HSM's

Anyway, where's your data?

Bernie wouldn't know a tide if it jumped up and licked him judging by his puerile remarks.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

>*Why does the U of Col get it so differently from CSIRO?*

Good point, why don't they both get a trend of 3.2mm/year? Oh they do both get a trend of 3.2mm/year.

Shorter Drongo:

Let me throw a trantrum and try and see if I can look even sillier.

>*Anyway, where's your data?*

He says squeezing his eyes tight shut and tyring to keep a straight face while citing the scientifically accepted CSIRO and U of C SLR data.

Drongo, you need a doctor.

Those last 4 years look a bit different somehow....

Maybe it's that 4 mm of uncertainty every 10 days or something.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

Janet, would you like to explain how a microwave sensor unit measures SLs. Seriously.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

>*Why does the U of Col get it so differently from CSIRO?*

Why are they so different? They are't: e.g. 3.2mm/year trend.

Why are they different? 60 day smoothing vs 3 month running mean; inverse barometer applied vs not applied.

Andrew Bolt in [one word](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink)

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies â all this is indispensably necessary.

>*Janet, would you like to explain how a microwave sensor unit measures SLs. Seriously.*

I know that the satelite sensors are properly calibrated, thus [accuracy is maintained](http://sealevel.colorado.edu/MG_Leuliette2004.pdf). You know, all those sciency steps like comparing sites, comparing times, and finding error. All the stuff you don't need cos we just need to believe you based on the data you don't keep.

Bernie wouldn't know a tide if it jumped up and licked him judging by his puerile remarks.

The answer is simple drongo.

Explain with appropriate scientific references where I am wrong about what I have said about tide heights, and where you are correct.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

Now, about that accuracy janet. You mean 2-3 cms point to point and 10 day temporal resolution. With all the altimetric, wave, tide, atmospheric pressure, OHC, wind and other variations you would need to adjust for every minute of the day you must really believe in statistics and fancy computer codes. But I'm sure you do and it gives you great comfort. Me, I tend to be a little sceptical.

They also say that the tide gauge estimates may overestimate SLR by a factor of 2-3 [and that could mean a SLR of only 5cms in 170 years {looks like my error of the satellites being 10 times the tide gauge might not be as bad a Bernie thought after all}] such are the vaguaries of accurate SL measurement. Another aspect of satellite measurement intrigues me and that is that as the earth is not spherical, not even oblately but an irregular lump and the satellites are in spherical orbit and the earth is spinning, how do they maintain constant height above SL? More statistical adjustment? But don't you worry about that. You must admit though, my data is looking better by the minute.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 10 Feb 2010 #permalink

Data drongo, what data??

All we can do is point you in the right direction and give you a kick up the arse - the rest is up to you.

The drongo:

any corroboration I might provide

When are you going to get it through your skull that corroboration means corroboration with an independent measurement. Independent measurement means something not done by you or with your guage. All you have to do is tell us where your guage is and we can look up data from the nearest tide guage. Is that harder than the Seven Labors of Hercules?

O'Neill, the "world average" temperature prior to 1910 was known to be considerably hotter

"Considerably" hotter than what? Certainly not now. You're just peddling more science denial bullsh!t.

and your understanding and smart-arse remarks about common western experiences

Right, so your "common western experiences" mean the temperature was 50°C. Including the ones in the 1950s when there were adequate high quality thermometers around but for some unknown reason they failed to record your 50°C. Sure. If you say so.

simply destroys your credibility.

Hahahahahahaha. What a hypocrite.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 11 Feb 2010 #permalink

O'Neill, go and check any east coast tide gauge that has been around since 1963. You don't need mine for that, dumbo!

Higher than 1910, dumbo!

So you've got a record of all western Qld station's temperatures for the 1950s? What does it say for "The Planet" in Jan. '58?

And have you ever experienced fuel vaporizing in the bush?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Feb 2010 #permalink

No answers of any substance from the drongo.

He still doesn't seem to have a clue about tides.

Chris said:

All you have to do is tell us where your gauge is and we can look up data from the nearest tide gauge. Is that harder than the Seven Labors of Hercules?

The drongo said he's in SEQ (South-East Queensland), so start with Brisbane and work your way outwards

[This](http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf) may shed some light on the discussion, though unfortunately the Brisbane data is a dog's breakfast:

the short section of data around 1970 at
Brisbane appears anomalous compared to the reconstruction
and other sea-level time series. We do not
have a definitive reason for this anomalous signal and
suspect it may be related to a change in the datum of
the tide-gauge between the two segments of data
(John Broadbent, personal communication).

It has been drawn to my attention that Spangled Drongo has repeated his [nonsense that sea level is not rising](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=6540&cp=57#comment-169420) over at the rat's-tooth epitaph thread of Marohasy's.

It's worth spending a few minutes deconstructing some of drongo's statements in order to demonstrate the depth of his ignorance of the subject, and if I am repeating concepts that I've covered above, I hope that folk will bear with me.

The first thing that drongo says that needs addressing is this phrase:

WRT to the HAT of the 31/1/10...

which shows that he doesn't even understand the definition of the term 'highest astronomical tide".

The highest astronomical tide for a site is the maximum high tide level that can ever occur under the gravitational influence of the sun and the moon - with a few minor astronomic permutations modifying things over time - and which is very much dependent upon the inherent local physical oceanographic characteristics of said site.

There is no "HAT of the 31/1/10". There is simply a HAT for the site in question, irrespective of date.

There is, of course, an 'astronomical tide' height calculable for any high (or low) tide for any day of the year, and there are tables and programs aplenty that will provide these, but for any one site there is only one HAT.

The provisos to this include:

  1. the modifying impact of planetary axial tilt precession and of continental drift, and
  2. the modifying impact of local physical oceanographic characteristics, as mentioned above.

The first we can discount over the scale of human lifetimes, and thus of the time-scale drongo's "observations", and the second is one of the factors about which I have repeatedly pressed drongo, to no avail. If drongo intends to somehow insinuate that he was referring to different "HATs" that account for hydrodymanic alterations, then he is only shooting himself in the foot, because he is then comparing apples to oranges to watermelons.

Of course, it is probable that drongo was referring to king ('spring' in UK) tides, and mis-used the term 'HAT' in an attempt to appear expert* in the use of arcane-sounding jargon, but he then falls into the trap of having to deal with all of the other tide-affecting parameters that he has [repeatedly been pressed to address](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…). King tides occur on the 'highest astronomical tide of the year', but the actual realised height of a king tide may be higher or lower than the predicted astronomical height, depending on the many other factors to which I keep referring, and to which drongo pays no heed.

Anyway, drongo continued:

... and my obs [sic] that in spite of it being a HAT it did not reach within 20cms of the usual king tides for the past 47 years

Hmmm. More of the same.

Without knowing where drongo's site is, it is difficult to determine whether the 31 January 2010 tide was predicted to reach the HAT value for that site. Thus, we don't know if it was supposed to be a true Highest Astronomical Tide, or just the highest predicted astronomical tide for the year - the latter event being one which has higher and lower values from year to year, in variance with the astronomical cycles of the sun, moon and Earth, and which will on occasion reach the true Highest Astronomical Tide value for the site.

And again, a king/spring tide, and indeed any tide, may exceed - or fail to reach - the predicted astronomical height for a host of atmospheric and hydrodynamic reasons.

Drongo apparently engaged in correspondence with "the principal scientist, coastal div [sic]". He quotes this paragraph from the reply that he says he received:

To assist, I have attached a plot of the tide information that I obtained from Queensland Transportâs tide gauge located at Southport for the period 29 January to 2 February. This plot clearly shows that the actual tide recorded by the tide gauge exceeded the HAT value for this region. It also indicates that the actual tide was higher than was predicted to occur.

Take the time to absorb the meaning of this carefully, dear readers, because deongo's immediate response at the Epitaph was:

To me this indicates that SLR is not only not occurring in my NOTW, it is considerably less than it was almost half a century ago.

The real expert is telling drongo that the tides exceeded both the actual HAT value for the region, and the astronomical values predicted for the period under discussion. And from this drongo decides that this means that sea level is decreasing.

I fail to fathom how he arrived at his conclusion, unless it was by assuming that king tide heights are constant over time, and that their exceedance of predicted height infers that the mean height must have decreased.

The principle scientist certainly said nothing that contradicts sea level rise, and only made comment that directly indicates that non-astronomical conditions were such that the tides exceeded height predicted using astronomical calculations. Nothing unusual there...

For the umpteenth time, if drongo thinks that he has a handle on the science, he should graps that damned nettle and explain where he is right and astronomers and oceanographers have it wrong.

Now, about that accuracy janet. You mean 2-3 cms point to point and 10 day temporal resolution. With all the altimetric, wave, tide, atmospheric pressure, OHC, wind and other variations you would need to adjust for every minute of the day you must really believe in statistics and fancy computer codes.

Translated - "I don't understand how tides might be measured". Which pretty much reflects how denialists don't understand how mean annual global temperatures are measured, either...

I go go on further, but what's the point? Drongo's already pulled his pants off and smeared himself with his own poo - his poor behaviour is already obvious for all to see.

*I claim no expertise myself - just a basic knowledge stemming from my scientific work in biology that requires an understanding of tides, and from my dive-mastering. Still, it's enough to know shit when someone is throwing that stuff about...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 11 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo you are correct I trust the scienfic process, publication of methods, results, professional scrutiny, well calibrated satellites, cross checking for error and drift and proven statistical calculation processes. Its all good verified science. And unlike you Drongo, these scientist are self correcting, they keep improving, and the SLR trend keep getting clearer.

Oh and you are wrong about your (that doesn't exist). Your data couldn't look any worse than it does, how do you get worse than made-up data?

Bernard;

Of course, it is probable that drongo was referring to king ('spring' in UK) tides, and mis-used the term 'HAT' in an attempt to appear expert*

That's the MO of the denialists, isn't it. Anthony Cox (AKA cohenite) is the acknowledged expert in the flagrant mis-use of technical terminology. Perhaps drongo has been taking lessons?

Drongo, I'd recommend you read [this](http://www.amazon.com/Tides-Scientific-David-Edgar-Cartwright/dp/052179…) - an excellent intro to the topic.

Joseph, there's no need to go back 380,000 years old chap. you may have observed in your doubtless broad experience with the present world that temps vary extremely simply with latitude whereas SLs vary very little world wide. At any given time SLs are much less chaotic than temperatures.

@drongo: Utter nonsense. When you're measuring how noisy or chaotic data is, what matters are changes over time relative to a baseline, not absolute measurements across the globe.

A concrete example: Annual solar irradiance series are cyclical and not very noisy. Yet, insolation at the poles is quite different to insolation at the equator.

O'Neill, the "world average" temperature prior to 1910 was known to be considerably hotter and your understanding and smart-arse remarks about common western experiences simply destroys your credibility.

What in the world are you talking about?

You blokes are in absolute denial about what's going on around you.

Yeah, we're the ones with that problem.

The absolute drongo:

go and check any east coast tide gauge that has been around since 1963.

Checking Sydney, Townsville and Williamstown in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf shows a long term increasing trend in average sea level at those guages. Also individual years (I presume that's the averaging period for points in the graph) can be more than 100 mm greater or less than the long term trend, so an individual year could easily have higher tides than many years later. Variation in average sea level within one year would be even greater than inter-annual variation and variation in individual tides even greater still. So picking out individual high tides is quite likely to be inconsistent with long term average trend over even quite a few years. So there's nothing unusual if drongo got a higher tide many years ago than recently, even though the tide guages show a long term increasing trend in average sea level.

It was generally hotter in the 1880s and it would be quite possible to achieve those old records.
the "world average" temperature prior to 1910 was known to be considerably hotter

Higher than 1910, dumbo!

So "considerably" higher means less than 0.2°C hotter (5 year average) and of course the 5 year average has been higher than the late 19th century the whole time since 1930. How does being "generally hotter" by 0.2°C than 1910 translate into being more than 3°C hotter than any temperature measured by any high quality thermometer at any time in the 20th and first 10 years of the 21st century? I think I know who's as dumb as a drongo.

So you've got a record of all western Qld station's temperatures for the 1950s?

You're the one asserting 50°C. Show us your quality temperature record.

What does it say for "The Planet" in Jan. '58?

By "The Planet", I presume you mean the global average temperature. In that case it was around 0.41°C above the 1951-1980 baseline. Fairly warm but not a patch on 7 of the last 8 years. What does this have to do with records in Queensland?

And have you ever experienced fuel vaporizing in the bush?

How does your Ford Blitz not getting vapor lock prove that it was 50°C?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 11 Feb 2010 #permalink

"Still, it's enough to know shit"

Bernie, you never said a truer word.

When a HAT at a nearby gauge exceeds predictions yet is STILL 20 cms below my data point that marked the king tides of 47 years ago, what is it that you don't understand?

O'Neill,

There were good data around that showed 0.7c fall from around 1880 to 1910 which seems to have been wiped [this is detrended but it shows the change].

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/…

"The Planet" is a station on the edge of Sturt's Stony Desert and it recorded 122 on more than one occasion when I was there in '58 and '59. I take it that your answer to my question "have you experienced fuel vaporization problems" is no, but if you had and you were driving in that temperature without the problem then it was because it wasn't yet hot enough. Because the problem did occur.

There are huge records of good data that never reach the official page but that does not mean they don't exist or that they are not good data. And when they do reach the official page they should not be blithely wiped away or adjusted by generations who wouldn't have a clue.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Feb 2010 #permalink

drongo;

When a HAT at a nearby gauge exceeds predictions yet is STILL 20 cms below my data point that marked the king tides of 47 years ago, what is it that you don't understand?..

How it is that you can be still so confused after so many people have tried to clue you up?

If you still think that one data point (and anecdotal at that) overturns a trend, we'll have to give up on you as irredeemably thick.

Incidentally, Drongo, when you say "SLs vary very little world wide", I'm assuming that you are unaware that they do vary quite a bit.

The sea level at the Maldives, for example, is around 100m lower than the global average, whereas around New Guinea it's about 70m higher. The West coast of ireland has about 50m higher sea levels, while the coast of Brazil has 10m lower sea levels. Etc...

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 11 Feb 2010 #permalink

When a HAT at a nearby gauge exceeds predictions yet is STILL 20 cms below my data point that marked the king tides of 47 years ago...

Gawd, it's bone all the way to the middle, isn't it?

This thread should be subtitled "Or the Humiliation of *Fpangled Drongo, Wherein said Byrdbrane Dyfplayes His Feathers of Compleat Ignorance".

A Highest Astronomical Tide, defined as the maximum tide height achievable at a particular site under the gravitational interactions of the Earth, the moon and the sun, and incorporating knowledge of the hydrodynamic profile of the site in question, does not (and by its very internal definition, cannot) be exceeded by astronomical predictions for any particular day. To phrase it in the converse, a site's HAT almost always exceeds its day-to-day predicted astronomical high tides, and is only very occasionally matched by the prediction for a particular day's astronomical high tide.

A HAT is a characteristic of a site and, excluding changes in hydrodynamic characteristics, does not change.

A HAT can, and frequently is, exceeded in reality because meteorological modifers act in concert with the gravitational forces that define the HAT in the first place.

The predictions that you refer to in your statement are thus, by definition, quite reasonably exceeded, and indeed are expected to be exceeded, by the site's HAT, unless the prediction itself happens to occur on a date where the celestial conjunctions are such that a HAT will occur. In this case the prediction will equal the HAT. Simple, innit?

The predictions that you refer to in your statement, which are merely king/spring tides unless there is a HAT conjunction, are also quite reasonably expected to be exceeded both in reality, and over sufficient intervals of time, by extreme meteorological modifiers.

Similarly, a HAT is quite reasonably exceeded, and indeed is expected to be often exceeded (though not as often as an annual astronomical highest tide), by the site's meteorologically modified actual tide height.

It flummoxes me that you can be so recalcitrant to understanding the matter, when you have so much to say about it and people have been so persistent in drawing to your attention your miscomprehension of the terms and the science. It's the "cooling since 1998" story all over again, with a few extra mangling of definitions thrown in.

The simple fact is that your measurement of tide height is completely unstandardised, and worse than anecdotal, and even if your "observations" were true, they do not in any way whatsoever contradict the definitions in tidal nomenclature, the predictions for astronomical tide heights, or the fundamental fact that sea level is rising.

You might think that you're being clever and that you have a 'gotchya', but you really are completely missing the point. It's telling, too, that none of your compadres from the epitaphic threadworm at the Bog are here to support you: where is cohenite, or Louis, or anyone of a dozen others who should be ra-ra-ing your cause?

I challenge you again - if you disagree, present some data, or a coherent scientific argument. Bring your mates over, and demolish us nasty logical types.

I challenge you. I beseech you. I bet that you can't.

*For those who are wondering, the confabuation of F and S reflects a historic typographic usage that isn't quite replicable in my keyboard.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 11 Feb 2010 #permalink

Vince, that's right and it's probably a combination of the pear shape that the world is and wind pressures pushing up the oceans on lee shores plus a few other things. I remember on night being camped at Milkeri Lagoons while droving on the Diamantina when nothing more than a strong wind caused a flood by blowing the lagoon across the claypan into our camp.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Feb 2010 #permalink

Bernie,

Do you ever love spouting esoteric crap!

I explained to you that HAT was not my description but that of the media, BoM, Coastal Sciences etc. and they claimed that it was higher than predicted. Just substitute plain old king tide and start all over again.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Feb 2010 #permalink

Oh, and Bernie, the blokes at Jen's don't hunt in packs like some others.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Feb 2010 #permalink

drongo,

Why don't you start over and try to explain your point without murdering science.

I explained to you that HAT was not my description but that of the media, BoM, Coastal Sciences etc. and they claimed that it was higher than predicted.

Then either the media misinterpreted the meaning of a HAT, or you misinterpreted a correct interpretation in the media.

Either way, you did not understand enough to know that your borrowing of the term from the media and using it here inappropriately was nonsense. Nor did you understand sufficient tidal science to realise that your subsequent insistence that your "observations", in conjunction with reference to HAT, somehow disprove sea level rise.

You're back to square one, drongo. Clueless, and with no defense for your claim that your sea wall "observations" disprove global sea level rise.

You can try to wiggle out of it, but it doesn't change the fact that you were, and are, wrong.

Just plain wrong.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 11 Feb 2010 #permalink

The Bernie Baby/Doltoid logic:

King tides of 1963 and subsequently for a few years reached a benchmark. As time progressed these king tides which had been pretty consistent for years started to reduce and not reach that benchmark as regularly as previously. In Jan. 2010, a king tide that turned out to be higher than predicted failed to reach the old benchmark by at least 20 cms.

The Bernie Baby/Doltoid conclusion:

SEA LEVEL RISE AS I LIVE AND BREATHE!!

Is that denial, delusion or what?

And to think I was just trying to promote a little scepticism.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo, I know that you are writhing in squeemish humiliation, but take a deep breath and simply try to make a case based on fact and logic.

Explain how you are right and I am wrong - if you can.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 11 Feb 2010 #permalink

Bernie Baby, I just did but your delusion and denial missed it. You probably didn't even hear the sound of wings.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Feb 2010 #permalink

This has to be the saddest display of senility I've ever witnessed online. Drongo, your mystery government scientist was just being nice when he pretended that your laughable data was of any importance. He just wanted the pathetic old windbag to shutup and go away. But I have a better idea: why don't you write up your research and submit it to the Courier Mail? They'll believe you, and you'll probably make new friends, maybe other old men and their seawalls are as desperate as you to be important and clever.

Old drongo:

There were good data around that showed 0.7c fall from around 1880 to 1910 which seems to have been wiped [this is detrended but it shows the change].

You are completely missing two points. Firstly, 0.7°C, or less than 0.6°C when you don't detrend, of global temperature difference does not translate into 3°C difference in Queensland. Secondly, it has been warmer globally recently than in 1878 or any other year around then without recording 53°C in Queensland. Your hypothesis that the all-time record could have been in the 1880s simply because global temperature was higher around 1878 than in 1910 is totally baseless. And just because a record "coulda" happened for whatever reason doesn't mean it did. BTW, the purported 53°C record occured in January 1889 which was less than 0.3°C warmer globally than January 1910.

"The Planet" is a station on the edge of Sturt's Stony Desert and it recorded 122 on more than one occasion when I was there in '58 and '59.

Whoopee doo. Pity it wasn't properly set up because then it could have taken Birdsville's 49.5°C record set in December 1972.

I take it that your answer to my question "have you experienced fuel vaporization problems" is no, but if you had and you were driving in that temperature without the problem then it was because it wasn't yet hot enough.

So if I had the problem and I didn't have the problem... Riiight. I think the dementia is setting into the old drongo's brain.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 12 Feb 2010 #permalink

Old drongo:

SEA LEVEL RISE AS I LIVE AND BREATHE!!

Is that denial, delusion or what?

It's just repeating what the east coast tide guages (as recommended by the old drongo)
say in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf . The only denial going on is the denial of the tide guage measurements published in that paper.

And to think I was just trying to promote a little scepticism.

The only thing I've seen you promote here is the unsceptical swallowing of anecdotal observations of king tides as if they bear a direct relation to long-term average sea level.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 12 Feb 2010 #permalink

Doltoid O'Neill,

Do you ever read the stuff you serve up as proof?

"Unfortunately there is insufficient data and we have to use numerical modelling techniques....."

A bit like the Sat. measurements don't you think? Hang on to your scepticism. [if you blokes have any]

And have a butchers hook at the actual data for Brisbane. It says exactly what I have been trying to point out to you Dolts for days; since the '60s THE SL HAS NOT BEEN RISING!!

Tim should rename this "Doltoids in denial"

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 12 Feb 2010 #permalink

Mangled Drongo.

You are levelling accusations at the wrong person - it was I who [first linked to the Church et al paper](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…). So blame me if you have any problems with it. It says a lot though that you can cruise for days without taking issue with data provided to you: obviously you don't actually read a lot of the information provided to you for your educational benefit. That's a wonderful look for someone who pretends to be attempting to construct a scientifically defencible case...

However, if you are nevertheless going to claim that the paper has deficiencies, you need to come up with something better than "Do you ever read the stuff you serve up as proof?"

You have a problem with their numerical modelling techniques? Then explain to us where they have it wrong, with reference to the relevant parameters and statisitics.

Whilst you're at it though, you might consider addressing the problems that I have with your "observations" on a sea wall, to wit:

  1. what was your procedure for ensuring that you were present at the sea wall exactly on the high tide "nearly every day", from 1963 to date
  2. how did you compensate for wave action, wind action, boat/ship wash at the sea wall
  3. how did you adjust for barometric variation at your sea wall
  4. how did you account for more regional weather phenomena that result in transient shifts of regional sea level
  5. what measures did you take to account for foundation deformation of the sea wall
  6. what measures did you take to account for eustatic and tectonic shiftings in the region of the sea wall
  7. what measures did you take to account for hydrodynamic alterations of the marine milieu, and thus of the alterations to tidal surge height, in the vicinity of the sea wall
  8. in what manner did you read/log your observations, and in what format did you record them
  9. where are your comparisons with predicted astronomical tide heights for the interval from 1963 to date
  10. what were the other, thus-far unlisted, elements of your standardised and controlled protocol for observing mean sea level at your sea wall?

Going back to the Church et al paper, and your claim that:

It says exactly what I have been trying to point out to you Dolts for days; since the '60s THE SL HAS NOT BEEN RISING!!

The only way that one could reach that conclusion is if one ignores the trend of the reconstructed history (against which you have provided no credible, scientifically-based argument), and the trend of the second period of tide-gauge recording. One does, in fact, have to argue that the ~1965-1974 guage readings are directly comparable to the ~1981+ gauge readings to make such a conclusion, and anyone with half a clue about tide-gauge measurement should be immediately suspicious that such non-contiguous data tidal data indicates a significant methodological change involving equipment, location, measuring protocol, or a combination of any or all of these.

Look at all of the other locations: they all clearly demonstrate that sea level has risen, whether one considers the tide-gauge readings or the reconstructions - just as the Brisbane reconstruction does. "Wait", you might say, "I have a problem with reconstructions!". Oh, really? Then do you have a problem with the Gulf of St Vincent reconstruction, which indicates that the change in sea level was quite a bit less than shown by tide-gauge measurements?

And even if your "observations" and your interpretation of the disparate Brisbane data are reflective of actual tidal measurements over the period, you still get straight back to the issues of eustatic shifts, and of hydrodynamic alterations, to say nothing of the fact that it does not in any way discount the high likelihood of variable meteorological conditions at king tide occasions, and different tide-gauge operations, giving spurious trends.

Tim should rename this "Doltoids Drongos in denial"

There... that's better.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Feb 2010 #permalink

Bernie,

When you hunt in packs you have to share the blame as well as the blood.

I don't recall extrapolating from my humble obs that it applied to the ROW but it is ironic and must be terribly embarrassing for you to find that your evidence is really MY evidence. I almost feel embarrassed for you myself.[guffaw]

But then you step further into the bog:

"Look at all of the other locations: they all clearly demonstrate that sea level has risen,"

So I had another butcher's and it seems that not much is happening in Townsville and a lot less in Steak 'n' Kidney. And we know how much is happening Tas. [mebbee 5 cm in 170 years]. But never mind, I'm sure that when the winter gales [or something] return so will SLR.

BTW, I checked those Antarctic Beeches [Nothofagus moorei] the other day and they asked me to remember them to you and to tell you they're doin' jus' fine.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 12 Feb 2010 #permalink

Some mothers do have them.

Drongo.

You really can't see past your nares, can you?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Feb 2010 #permalink

Old dolt drongo:

Do you ever read the stuff you serve up as proof?

"Unfortunately there is insufficient data and we have to use numerical modelling techniques....."

What a hypocrite. Actual quote:

"Unfortunately, there is insufficient data to complete this analysis at other locations due to the paucity of tide-gauge records dating back to early in the 20th century and of sufficient length to reliably estimate changes in ARIs of extreme sea level."

The old dolt drongo not only practices quotation out-of-context, he blatantly corrupts his quotations. The authors were actually estimating ARI for locations beside Sydney and Fremantle back to early in the 20th century, i.e. before the 1960s observation of the old dolt drongo which was after the tide gauges of Williamstown and Townsville were commenced. The old dolt drongo ignored the fact that that these gauges (as well as Sydney's) were operating at the time of his observation, which he would have noticed if he had actually read the document. He said earlier:

go and check any east coast tide gauge that has been around since 1963

which I did in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf (figure 1) which has three east coast tide gauges that have been around since before 1963. Maybe he should take his own advice about reading the reference material but that probably won't stop him from making an ass of himself.

Hang on to your scepticism.

Pity you can't take your own advice about your own "observations".

And have a butchers hook at the actual data for Brisbane. It says exactly what I have been trying to point out to you Dolts for days; since the '60s THE SL HAS NOT BEEN RISING!!

As usual the old dolt drongo can't take his own advice about reading what he quotes from. Church et al says:

"the short section of data around 1970 at Brisbane appears anomalous compared to the reconstruction and other sea-level time series. We do not have a definitive reason for this anomalous signal and suspect it may be related to a change in the datum of the tide-gauge between the two segments of data (John Broadbent, personal communication)."

i.e. the Brisbane gauge data segment around 1970 (isolated from the series beginning in 1980) is completely inconsistent with all other tide gauges operating in Australia since before that time.

The old dolt drongo might take his own advice one day about reading the reference material but I won't be holding my breath.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 12 Feb 2010 #permalink

Dumbo Doltoid O'Neill,

I can see why you and Bernie hunt in the same pack with your logic. I probably should have put in some dots in place of that detail that only helped to make my point but I left it out for the sake of brevity. Like him you prefer statistics, codes and computer modelling that much of that paper is based on as well as presumed increase in cyclone activity which isn't happening. They can't even measure most of the changes in the 20th century and only estimate them and the ARIs. The word estimate comes up so much you wonder how real any of it really is. You may also like to consider that ARIs are often decreasing due to the opening of channels, increased dredging etc that is always happening in the ports where these tide gauges are placed. But ARIs aren't the same as SLR.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 13 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo claims:

I don't recall extrapolating from my humble obs [sic] that it applied to the ROW.

For a while my inclination has been to let this nonsense slide, but the 'misrepresentation' irks me, so against my better judgement...

Drongo's claim that he was not extrapolating to the rest of the world was made after a number of statements that would rather indicate otherwise.

His first was at post #5, where he said :

When you personally observe and measure these king tides against known levels on infrastructure which, if it has moved over time, has only moved downward, then you have to be a bit sceptical of these SLR claims. Maybe it's a bit like this story and Andrew's being pretty conservative with his 4 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066712/Uncovered-lost-b…

"These SLR claims"? "Andrew's being pretty conservative with his 4 years [with respect to claims pertaining to global sea level]"?

When people speak of 'sea level rise' in the literature, they are not as a rule speaking of the coastline along with drongo wanders peering at waves lapping against sea walls. The claims that drongo is so sceptical of are claims about global sea level.

There is also this at #7:

When the "single-man-in-the-street is asked once again to believe what he is told, not what he experiences, without a reasonable explanation, then it is also reasonable for him to be somewhat sceptical.

The "single-man-in-the-street" is not being asked to believe anything about one locality on the planet, he (and she) is being referred to global trends. Drongo knows this: it is the only interpretation that lends sense to his statement.

Then there is this at #13:

It is pretty hard to convince yourself that that graph [of global (= Rest Of World) seal level, at the top to the thread] is telling the story.

Enough said.

There is also this at #22:

For SLR to be a fact, sea levels have to actually rise and when they haven't done this for nearly 50 years at my datum point then it is reasonable to assume that maybe it's not happening...

BTW anonymous, your Roman fish traps which still look functional seem to confirm my argument more than yours

SLR again refers to global sea levels, and not to southern Queensland tide levels. And the last time I looked, there were no Roman fish traps in the Southern Hemisphere, let alone in Southern Queensland...

And there's this at #24:

The south coast of England is sinking and the Roman Invasion site is found 2 miles inland yet the seas are still rising...

Roman sites in southern England? I can't think of any cartographic projection that stretches southern England to within a cooee of southern Queensland.

There's this at post #55:

I have asked if any of you have made any of your own similar long-term obs [sic] but it seem not so you have nothing else to go by. I'm sure though that you have noticed that one of the most singular properties of water is for it to find its own level and so when I get alarmist predictions about SLR around the world it is always worthwhile to check and make sure that I am not drowning.

[My emboldened emphases]

Two points: first, no-one is concerned about local long-term trends - it is the global trend that is the point in all of this.

I think that the second point is self-explanatory.

Moving down the thread, there is #61:

Tim, that link on U of Col SLR graph isn't coming up but I'm sure you can find it.

Erm, isn't "U of Col SLR" a reference to a global dataset?

Or how about #72:

You've all got no idea how impressed I am by your collective logic so I'll ask just one more time [glutton that I am]: as a hypothetical, if you saw only no and negative SLR at one datum point of the worlds [sic] oceans for nearly half a century, and no-one was telling you different, what conclusion would you draw?

My conclusion would be that one is referring to the world's (id est, global) sea level.

Then there's #89:

I'll point out for those not paying attention that 47 years of obs [sic] of king tides winter and summer have shown no increase in SL. In earlier years the tides reached the top of the step but did not exceed it. The more recent tides have not done that and the HAT of 31/1/10 [which was higher than expected] was at least 20cms below the top of the step when according to some predictions and satellite measurements it should have been a similar distance above.

Hang on... Satellites? Um, aren't they used to determine global sea level trends?

Perhaps #90 will convince the doubting reader:

Ken, if you watch one point of the ocean for 47 years and there IS genuine SLR, what do you think happens? I'll give you a tip, It don't go down.

That's SLR (implicitly global) in an ocean to which drongo refers, not SQTH (south Queensland tide height), no matter that his reference is a single point.

It's possible that last is a bit vague though...

Maybe #97 will do the trick (oo, I said 'trick'):

Ken, c'mon now, temps are just a little more chaotic over 47 years than sea levels. Also I didn't think that satellites agreed with tide gauges. That tide gauge at Port Arthur supposedly shows about 15 cms rise in 169 years. The Satellites show that much in about one tenth of the time.

Satellites? Port Arthur? Yeah, that's a local focus, for sure...

How about this at #104:

Bernard, you "experts" are telling us all sorts of alarmist stuff wrt SLR, from very little to impossible amounts. If you choose not to understand about looking at SL on a near daily basis over a long time against a known fixed point and not seeing ANY of this then I can't help you any further.

Those "experts" to which drongo refers are commenting on global sea level rise, and indeed it is the "very little to impossible amounts" of global sea level rise predicted under various scenarios that drongo so has a bee in his bonnet about.

Definitely not local.

Still not convinced? What about #108:

Joseph, there's no need to go back 380,000 years old chap. you may have observed in your doubtless broad experience with the present world that temps vary extremely simply with latitude whereas SLs vary very little world wide. At any given time SLs are much less chaotic than temperatures.

[My emboldened emphases]

Um, as far as I know there are very few 380,000 year old records that focus on southern Queensland tide heights.

The emboldened bit sorta gives drongo's context away too...

Maybe #123 is the clincher:

Why does the U of Col get it so differently from CSIRO?

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

More U of Col stuff again.

And more satellite (= planetary) sea level context at #129:

Janet, would you like to explain how a microwave sensor unit measures SLs. Seriously.

There follows yet more commentary about satellites, and about the shape of the planet in the context of sea level, at #134:

They also say that the tide gauge estimates may overestimate SLR by a factor of 2-3 [and that could mean a SLR of only 5cms in 170 years {looks like my error of the satellites being 10 times the tide gauge might not be as bad a Bernie thought after all}] such are the vaguaries of accurate SL measurement. Another aspect of satellite measurement intrigues me and that is that as the earth is not spherical, not even oblately but an irregular lump and the satellites are in spherical orbit and the earth is spinning, how do they maintain constant height above SL?

At #149 there's another link to a global sea level paper:

Michael, with brains like yours who needs stupidity. Applying that same great logic you can probably make this agree with that CSIRO SL study.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/11/new-paper-in-science-sea-level-81…)

And another reference to the shape of the planet, with respect to sea level, at #152:

it's probably a combination of the pear shape that the world is and wind pressures pushing up the oceans on lee shores plus a few other things.

Satellites (= global context, remember) are mentioned again at #164:

A bit like the Sat. [sic] measurements don't you think?

Probably the silliest faux pas of the lot was the very post at #166 where drongo said (to repeat):

I don't recall extrapolating from my humble obs [sic] that it applied to the ROW [sic]...

and four sentences later in the same paragraph he took a tour around the east coast of Australia:

So I had another butcher's and it seems that not much is happening in Townsville and a lot less in Steak 'n' Kidney. And we know how much is happening Tas. [mebbee 5 cm in 170 years].

Riiight...

Drongo, I rather think that you are attempting to move the goal posts.

And that's putting it kindly.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Feb 2010 #permalink

Master of non-sequiturs drongo:

Like him you prefer statistics, codes and computer modelling that much of that paper is based on

Where did I talk about statistics, codes and computer modelling in quoting tide-gauge data? I even pointed out where the data came from that I was referring to (figure 1). My only interest in that paper was the tide-guage data in figure 1 that you either ignore or mis-understand. This drongo is as dumb as they come.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 14 Feb 2010 #permalink

Bernie and Chris,

The single thing you have convinced me of with your convoluted arguments and denial of the bleedin' obvious is that the "science" of SLR is mainly estimations, statistics and computer codes and very little observable fact but when observable facts show that very little is happening locally, you can be sure that its not doing much different anywhere else.

As someone said recently: "climate realists want the same things warmists want but they are also partial to the truth".

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 14 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo, you really don't know much do you?

"observable facts show that very little is happening locally, you can be sure that its not doing much different anywhere else."

You think it's okay to extrapolate a single point globally? Maybe we could actually look a the real world data and see that it varies widely by location?

Drongo.

Are you physically incapable of answering the very straightforward questions put to you?

Let's try again, with a few extras thrown in for context.

  1. How do you think tide gauge measurements are taken?
  2. What is you problem with the professional methods used for measuring tides/sea level?
  3. Where exactly are the shortcomings of the application of statistics and of 'modelling' to the measured sea level data?
  4. What are your answers to [these repeatedly asked questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…)?
  5. Given the magnitude of the sea level rise signal, and of the noise of the heights of king tides under various meteorological (let alone hydrodynamic, and beyond astronomic) conditions, how do you propose to detect the signal over the noise of the form of "observation" with which you claim to be monitoring sea level?
  6. Further to the previous question, using king tide height "observations" as a proxy for sea level trend, how long a period do you calculate would be necessary to detect a signal using a proxy with as much noise as the one that you are "observing"?
  7. Why are my arguments "convoluted"? Are they not straightforward challenges to the poor logic of your own observations?
  8. Why is my "denial" of the validity of your "observations" more egregious than your patent denial of the sound methodological points that I am raising?
  9. Drongo, you've been completely exposed as an incompetent ignorant on the matter of tides. You can continue to bluster that you're right and the rest of us are wrong, but unless you actually address the ever-growing list of substantive points being made against your argument, you are simple demonstrating to all who read this that you are completely clueless in the matter of sea level determination.

    Hasn't the fact that not a single one of your denialist mates has come to your defence, triggered a suspicion in your mind? If you think that you have a case, run over to the rat's-tooth thread and recruit Louis and cohenite to your team - the more, the merrier, eh?

    Or not. You have not demonstrated one iota of basic scientific accumen in your diatribe, and yet you presume to dispute the scientific validity of the field about which you believe you know best. This requires and extraordinary degree of Dunning-Kruger affliction, and it basically reflects the Denialist approach to any science that ruffles their spangled feathers the wrong way.

    It doesn't change the truth of the matter though. When all is said and done, physics will out.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo, I think you should lobby Andrew Bolt to take up your single point sea level argument. In fact you should lobby anyone who's views you respect; and anyone who you think is a good spokesperson for so called AGW 'skeptics'.

I think it would be a coup if you could get the like of Bolt to repeat it!

Stu,

Yes, you prove my point exactly. Both about SLR and Doltoid Deniers. But [sigh] I'll spell it out OMT.

SLs fluctuate around the world [always have, always will] but by it's very nature if it's constant or falling in your own back yard for a long period of time, you don't need to haemorrhage over it.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 14 Feb 2010 #permalink

Once again a single man-in-the-street, using only his common-sense, unequivocally disproves years of work by teams of highly trained scientists.

Well done spangled drongo!!

Zoot,

Admire your recycling habits [does it come from a recycled brain, too?] but I s'pose these are the sort of "highly trained scientists" you refer to:

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.

âItâs not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,â he said. âWe also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.â

If you're all so determined to bleed, there are plenty of struggling ticks and leeches that need the blood.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 14 Feb 2010 #permalink

How THICK have you got to be not to see that SEQ is not doing anything SLR-wise. And the whole east coast in the last 50 years [which is the period you triple Ds are bleeding about] is doing next to nothing as well.

As I said, the tide gauges are usually in ports which are having their tide flow rates increased constantly with continuous dredging and in spite of this still nothing is happening other than reducing ARI.
Near where my benchmark is situated the main channel has gone from around 2m deep to 20m deep over the last 25 years and if SL was increasing, that increase in choke-hole size would produce SLR very quickly. But instead it is GOING DOWN! NOTHING TO SEE HERE! So you can go back to sleep.

Even Stu thinks my evidence is his evidence. So don't feel too bad.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/files/earth540/image/sealevel-thumb.jpg

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 14 Feb 2010 #permalink

O.

M.

F.

G.

Let's ignore the fact that that you [brought up southern Queensland king tide heights in the context of global sea level](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…).

Let's ignore the fact that you do not provide peer-reviewed data to contest sea level rise in the western Pacific.

Let's ignore the fact that that there is no record of you having said:

... the tide gauges are usually in ports which are having their tide flow rates increased constantly with continuous dredging and in spite of this still nothing is happening other than reducing ARI.

before [your very last post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…).

Let us instead look at what the import of your latest statement is...

If, "near where [your] benchmark is situated the main channel has gone from around 2m deep to 20m deep over the last 25 years", then there has been introduced to the system that you are observing, a hydrodynamic alteration of such profound proportions that nothing you say can possibly hold water (boom-tish).

Most particularly, deepening and widening a channel tends to reduce the height of tidal bores.

Oh dear.

What do you think that this implies for your entire "thesis"?!

Oh dear...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo's mouth, meet Drongo's foot.

"Most particularly, deepening and widening a channel tends to reduce the height of tidal bores."

Bernard,

Is that because it reduces sea level?

Don't be a drip [another D]. What it does is enormously increase the volume of sea through the choke which allows the sea levels inside that entrance[choke] to achieve equilibrium with the the true ocean levels more consistantly. IOW it gives a more accurate indication of SLs throughout the full range of any given tide. This is what makes ARIs in that Church paper more frequent. When you have a shallow choke, you get a more restricted tide range inside than outside because as the tide drops the tide bore stops flowing and the entrance acts as a barrage or dam. However it does not necessarily affect high and king tide levels as the choke opens exponentially as the tide rises.

In the event of storm surge a bigger choke could allow higher SLs inside.

If your argument was correct these SL reductions would have been seen 25 years ago but they weren't noticed until more recent years.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 14 Feb 2010 #permalink

Who builds a sea wall behind a "shallow choke"?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo, why don't you tell us exactly where your sea wall is, so that we can establish the hydrodynamic nature of your site.

See, it really doesn't work for you either way. If the dredging was such that a mitigation of tidal boring did not occur, because there is a "shallow choke", then it's quite likely that the same "shallow choke" was responsible for a degree of impoundment of freshwater inflow from upstream rivers - in which case dredging would result in the same result on tide heights.

Show us the raw data. Or do you need to get permission from the Russians first?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Feb 2010 #permalink

YAWN!

One sea wall does not a global dataset make.

Bullsh!tter:

the whole east coast in the last 50 years is doing next to nothing as well.

Bull. Sh!t.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

Spangled Drongo says:
"When you have a shallow choke, you get a more restricted tide range inside than outside because as the tide drops the tide bore stops flowing and the entrance acts as a barrage or dam. However it does not necessarily affect high and king tide levels as the choke opens exponentially as the tide rises."

Bullcrap. Hydrodynamic effects are not anywhere near taht simeple and intuitive. As an example on a somewhat larger scale - I live on San Francisco Bay. I used to race sailboats here on the bay. I wonder if Drongo cares to guess where the greatest tidal range is, in the bay? It certainly is nto at the Golden Gate, that amazing choke point where the currents roar in and out several times a day. Normal tidal range at the gate is on toe order of 2 meters.

The greatest tidal range is in the extreme south bay, 25 miles or more from the gate, behind the 'choke' of the gate itself, and then miles of shallow water creating yet another 'choke.' Tidal range at the extreme south bay runs up to 5 meters.

Water sloshing into and out of a pair of coupled basins can do complex and counterintuitive things. Hydrodynamic effects are much more complex that Drango imagines.

SLs fluctuate around the world [always have, always will] but by it's very nature if it's constant or falling in your own back yard for a long period of time, you don't need to haemorrhage over it.

Completely ridiculous. If, say, global sea level rises by 1 meter, you don't think it will affect your "back yard," simply because short-term data is noisy and varies with location? Some locations will be affected more than others, sure, but given enough time and enough SLR, everyone is affected in a major way.

You probably saw the graph I posted with the Red Sea SL reconstruction from Siddall et al. (2003). Over long periods of time, the Red Sea SL does match global SL fairly well. Over short periods of time, probably not.

DDDD O'Neill,

I you care to take your biased eye off the CSIRO "reconstructions" and look at actual measurements you will see otherwise.

Joseph,

"If, say, global sea level rises by 1 meter, you don't think it will affect your "back yard,"...?"

Once again you support my argument. Of course it affects my "back yard" but if my "back yard" is not affected over a long period [which is the case], then not much is happening.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

@drongo:

if my "back yard" is not affected over a long period [which is the case], then not much is happening.

It's not the case. The rise we've seen globally in the last 100 years is probably around 20 cm. That's why you are able to claim that your back yard is not affected. And no, 50 years is not a long period of time.

However, by the end of this century the rise might indeed be 1 meter.

Sea level is very slow to change, apparently. At the moment the equilibrium sea level could be several meters above current levels. Just looking at the Vostok temperature reconstruction vs. the Red Sea SL reconstruction, I see a lag of about 4,700 years.

Is drongo still droning on about this?

I guess since Jen's blog has closed down, the inmates have had to find new digs where they can spout their nonsense.

>*DDDD O'Neill,*

>*I you care to take your biased eye off the CSIRO "reconstructions" and look at actual measurements you will see otherwise.*

Take that Chris O'Neill,

I reject your submission of peer reviewed science, and subsitute my fantansy data; trust me, my data is better then the CSIROs. My data may or may not be in my life's diaries, but you should trust me without seeing it.

By Shorter Drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

DOUBLE DIGIT DOLTOIDS,

Even when your "peer reviewed" papers proclaim nothing happening on the east coast you are all so much in auto pilot mode you can't regain personal control and re-engage your brains.

O'Neill, I gotta admit, yours is bigger than mine. My fantasy data can't hold a candle to the stuff you spout. But in the interests of reality and your own sanity I suggest you find a suitable benchmark somewhere so you will know what's really happening around you and you don't have to get "peer reviewed" for the rest of your life.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

Church et al. 2006

>*we find that the change of relative mean sea level around the Australian coastline for the period 1920 to 2000 is about 1.2 mm per year.*

[1.1 and 1.3 mm per year for Fort Denison (East cost) and Fremantle (west coast) respectively.]

Drongo's special interpretion:

>*your "peer reviewed" papers proclaim nothing happening on the east coast*

By Special Drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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#co…), [#30](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), [#85](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), [#94](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), [#115](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), [#133](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), [#141](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), [#151](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), [#158](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), [#165](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), [#172](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), [#176](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), [#183](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), [#186](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), [#189](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), and [#190](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…).

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.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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.

>*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:

By Special Drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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.

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.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 16 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Feb 2010 #permalink

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.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 16 Feb 2010 #permalink

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.

By Shorter Drongo (not verified) on 16 Feb 2010 #permalink

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.

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!

By Shorter Drongo (not verified) on 16 Feb 2010 #permalink

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.

>*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/comme…).

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

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

By Shorter Drongo (not verified) on 16 Feb 2010 #permalink

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:

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 16 Feb 2010 #permalink

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 ... ;-)

By Fran Barlow (not verified) on 16 Feb 2010 #permalink

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"?

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.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 16 Feb 2010 #permalink

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

> 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?

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.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 17 Feb 2010 #permalink

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
184134
18880
20002.5
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm

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.

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

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!)

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

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?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 17 Feb 2010 #permalink

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.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 17 Feb 2010 #permalink

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!

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?

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.

Drongo [says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…):

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?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Feb 2010 #permalink

"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.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 18 Feb 2010 #permalink

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.

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#co…), 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#co…) 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) â just in case that's when the 'real' king tides occur that somehow predict sea level change â 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 â 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 â 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...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Feb 2010 #permalink

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/comme…):

>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.

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

What a bunch.

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.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

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#co…) 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)?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

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".

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

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!

Slink away, Drongo. It's over.

By A. Lurker (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

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.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink

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?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Feb 2010 #permalink