Andrew Bolt in one graph

Andrew Bolt claims:

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

i-b61ba55f77ccc7130aa283bc404d9f77-alt_gmsl_seas_rem.png

Comments

  1. #1 Mike
    February 6, 2010

    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.

  2. #2 Monkeywrench
    February 6, 2010

    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.

  3. #3 spangled drongo
    February 7, 2010

    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.

  4. #4 Ezzthetic
    February 7, 2010

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

    That’s a load of old HATs, drongo.

  5. #5 spangled drongo
    February 7, 2010

    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-beach-Romans-got-toehold-Britain.html

  6. #6 zoot
    February 7, 2010

    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!!

  7. #7 spangled drongo
    February 7, 2010

    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.

  8. #8 Anonymous
    February 7, 2010

    >*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.

    < http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html>

  9. #9 Chris O'Neill
    February 7, 2010

    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.

  10. #10 Dappledwater
    February 7, 2010

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

  11. #11 zoot
    February 7, 2010

    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.

  12. #12 Bernard J.
    February 7, 2010

    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-2255256)), 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.

  13. #13 spangled drongo
    February 7, 2010

    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?

  14. #14 Anonymous
    February 7, 2010

    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.

  15. #15 Joseph
    February 7, 2010

    A full 4 years?! Wow. We must be heading toward a water-free Earth.

  16. #16 jakerman
    February 7, 2010

    Drongo lives up to his name, by measuring global sealevel with HAT at one single, locale. Drongo, perhaps you could have an endless debate with someone from the [Carteret Islands](http://www.theage.com.au/national/first-climate-refugees-start-move-to-new-island-home-20090728-e06x.html), (But you’ll need to start lookin for them in PNG) or perhaps you could instead look at the global data?

    < http://www.theage.com.au/national/first-climate-refugees-start-move-to-new-island-home-20090728-e06x.html>

  17. #17 dhogaza
    February 7, 2010

    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?

  18. #18 Paul UK
    February 7, 2010

    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.

  19. #19 J
    February 7, 2010

    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.”

  20. #20 Dave X
    February 7, 2010

    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.

  21. #21 Dan Gleibitz
    February 7, 2010

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

    Glaciologists at the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography (LEGOS – 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/comments/apocalypse_delayed1/

    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.”

  22. #22 spangled drongo
    February 8, 2010

    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

  23. #23 Paul UK
    February 8, 2010

    >”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).

  24. #24 spangled drongo
    February 8, 2010

    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…

  25. #25 Anonymous
    February 8, 2010

    >*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?

  26. #26 jakerman
    February 8, 2010

    >*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#comment-2256324).

  27. #27 Blair
    February 8, 2010

    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.

  28. #28 spangled drongo
    February 8, 2010

    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?

  29. #29 Anonymous
    February 8, 2010

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

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

    < http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html>

  30. #30 Bernard J.
    February 8, 2010

    …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.

  31. #31 spangled drongo
    February 8, 2010

    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.

  32. #32 Anonymous
    February 8, 2010

    Drongo, I’ll stick with the holistic data presented by the CSIRO, you can stick with your tosh. And as has bee stated before you can compare your favored datum location with those of [climate refugees](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2256324).

    < http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2256324>

  33. #33 spangled drongo
    February 8, 2010

    “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.

  34. #34 jakerman
    February 8, 2010

    Drongo I see you are [still squeezing your eyes shut](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2257240). Why do think Andrew Bolt is ignoring your claim of no sea rise for 50 years? Does anyone agree with you? Perhaps you should approach the potty peer or the mad monk, if neither of them take up your claims, where will you turn?

  35. #35 Paul UK
    February 8, 2010

    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.

  36. #36 Paul UK
    February 8, 2010

    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.

  37. #37 Hugh
    February 8, 2010

    UK isostatic sea-level change you want?

    Try here!

    http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87

  38. #38 Ken Fabos
    February 8, 2010

    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.

  39. #39 spangled drongo
    February 8, 2010

    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.

  40. #40 jakerman
    February 8, 2010

    Shorter Drongo:

    >I’ll [keep my eyes closed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2257344) and tell everyone else to open theirs.

  41. #41 Joseph
    February 8, 2010

    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.

  42. #42 spangled drongo
    February 8, 2010

    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?

  43. #43 jakerman
    February 8, 2010

    shorter drongo:

    >I know that change HAT in one location dosn’t measure global SRL but I’m going to close my eyes and argre that it does.

    Then drongo actually asks:

    >*”Anyone know of a better way to visually verify SLR?”*

    Why not ask a [sealevel rise refugee](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2256324)?

    < http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2256324>

  44. #44 spangled drongo
    February 8, 2010

    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.

  45. #45 Chris O'Neill
    February 8, 2010

    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.

  46. #46 John Hunter
    February 8, 2010

    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.

  47. #47 jakerman
    February 8, 2010

    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?

  48. #48 jakerman
    February 8, 2010

    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.

  49. #49 spangled drongo
    February 8, 2010

    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.

  50. #50 jakerman
    February 8, 2010

    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?

  51. #51 spangled drongo
    February 8, 2010

    janet, I think you’ll find that the only islanders going underwater are these:

    http://www.deccanherald.com/content/31051/maldives-cabinet-meets-underwater-seek.html

    But you’re similarly as far off base and fraudulent.

  52. #52 John Hunter
    February 8, 2010

    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.

  53. #54 jakerman
    February 8, 2010

    And Drongo,

    [Why can’t you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2259237) convince even other denialist of your bankrupt claims?

    Expalin why you think you’re so far off the deep end?

    < http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html>

  54. #55 spangled drongo
    February 8, 2010

    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.

  55. #56 spangled drongo
    February 8, 2010

    janet, would you care to learn something about coral atols?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/

  56. #57 spangled drongo
    February 9, 2010
  57. #58 John
    February 9, 2010

    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.

  58. #59 spangled drongo
    February 9, 2010
  59. #60 jakerman
    February 9, 2010

    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.

  60. #61 spangled drongo
    February 9, 2010

    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.

  61. #62 jakerman
    February 9, 2010

    Despite being unreliable at least Willis Eschenbach is not at odds with my message that you shouldn’t pick your favoured data point and claim that is represents sea level rise.

    Isn’t it time you took my advice and [started using the global sea level data](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2256324)?

  62. #63 spangled drongo
    February 9, 2010

    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.

  63. #64 John
    February 9, 2010

    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.

  64. #65 jakerman
    February 9, 2010

    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.

  65. #66 John Hunter
    February 9, 2010

    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?”

  66. #67 dhogaza
    February 9, 2010

    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.

  67. #68 dhogaza
    February 9, 2010

    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.

  68. #69 Marco
    February 9, 2010

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

  69. #70 luminous beauty
    February 9, 2010

    >_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…_

  70. #71 Michael
    February 9, 2010

    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.

  71. #72 spangled drongo
    February 9, 2010

    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?

  72. #73 spangled drongo
    February 9, 2010

    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.

  73. #74 Vince Whirlwind
    February 9, 2010

    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?

  74. #75 Chris O'Neill
    February 9, 2010

    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.”

  75. #76 spangled drongo
    February 9, 2010

    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?

  76. #77 jakerman
    February 9, 2010

    >*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.

  77. #78 Michael
    February 9, 2010

    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.

  78. #79 Paul UK
    February 9, 2010

    Hugh said:
    >UK isostatic sea-level change you want? Try here!
    http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87

    I am well aware of the Isostatic changes in the UK. A lot of people are!

  79. #80 spangled drongo
    February 9, 2010

    “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…..

  80. #81 Hugh
    February 9, 2010

    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!

  81. #82 Michael
    February 9, 2010

    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.

  82. #83 Chris S.
    February 9, 2010

    Spangled.

    What were the weather conditions at the time of the two HATs that comprise your data points?

    Did you follow the methodology outlined in Sobey (2005) or similar when devising your study?

    [Sobey, R.J. Coastal Engineering Volume 52, Issue 1, January 2005, Pages 63-77](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VCX-4DR1RJ7-1&_user=8312874&_coverDate=01%2F01%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1199879250&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000053656&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=8312874&md5=00c12f89d9322af230cd47a59fb52eb7)

  83. #84 Joseph
    February 9, 2010

    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.)

  84. #85 Bernard J.
    February 9, 2010

    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#comment-2259752) and [Chris S](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2259812) 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#comment-2259425), 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…

  85. #86 Chris O'Neill
    February 9, 2010

    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?

  86. #87 Paul UK
    February 9, 2010

    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?

  87. #88 Ken Fabos
    February 10, 2010

    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.

  88. #89 spangled drongo
    February 10, 2010

    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.

  89. #90 spangled drongo
    February 10, 2010

    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.

  90. #91 Chris S.
    February 10, 2010

    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.”

  91. #92 Michael
    February 10, 2010

    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.

  92. #93 Hugh
    February 10, 2010

    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

  93. #94 Bernard J.
    February 10, 2010

    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#comment-2260055), 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?
  94. #95 spangled drongo
    February 10, 2010

    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.

  95. #96 Ken Fabos
    February 10, 2010

    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.

  96. #97 spangled drongo
    February 10, 2010

    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.

  97. #98 spangled drongo
    February 10, 2010

    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.

  98. #99 Bernard J.
    February 10, 2010

    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).

  99. #100 spangled drongo
    February 10, 2010

    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.

Current ye@r *