Andrew Bolt in one graph

Andrew Bolt claims:

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

i-b61ba55f77ccc7130aa283bc404d9f77-alt_gmsl_seas_rem.png

Comments

  1. #1 Bernard J.
    February 10, 2010

    [One mistake down](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2262333), many more to go.

    You’re obviously reading my posts drongo – so when are you going to man up and respond to my questions, and simple points of fact, [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2260055) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2262230)?

  2. #2 Sparrow
    February 10, 2010

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

  3. #3 Joseph
    February 10, 2010

    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?

  4. #4 spangled drongo
    February 10, 2010

    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.

  5. #5 Michael
    February 10, 2010

    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.

  6. #6 Joseph
    February 10, 2010

    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?

  7. #7 spangled drongo
    February 10, 2010

    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.

  8. #8 spangled drongo
    February 10, 2010

    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.

  9. #9 Michael
    February 10, 2010

    Drongo,

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

    Militant idiocy strikes again.

  10. #10 Michael
    February 10, 2010

    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.

  11. #11 Anonymous
    February 10, 2010

    >*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.

  12. #12 Chris O'Neill
    February 10, 2010

    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.

  13. #13 Chris O'Neill
    February 10, 2010

    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.

  14. #14 spangled drongo
    February 10, 2010

    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.

  15. #15 Bernard J.
    February 10, 2010

    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#comment-2255199) 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#comment-2255571), [post #85](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2260055), and [post #94](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2262230).

    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_Specifications_for_PCTMSL-pages2-9.pdf)? 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#comment-2262230)?

    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#comment-2256248)”, 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#comment-2262230), 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#comment-2264532)” 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.

  16. #16 Michael
    February 10, 2010

    ….but….but..”it was witnessed by others”! – that’s corroboration!!

  17. #17 jakerman
    February 11, 2010

    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.”*

  18. #18 Bernard J.
    February 11, 2010

    Oops.

    I just realised that I said [at #115](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2265030)

    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…

  19. #19 dhogaza
    February 11, 2010

    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.

  20. #20 foram
    February 11, 2010
  21. #21 spangled drongo
    February 11, 2010

    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.

  22. #22 Michael
    February 11, 2010

    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!!

  23. #23 spangled drongo
    February 11, 2010

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

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

  24. #24 spangled drongo
    February 11, 2010

    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.

  25. #25 jakerman
    February 11, 2010

    >*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.

  26. #26 jakerman
    February 11, 2010

    Shorter Drongo:

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

  27. #27 jakerman
    February 11, 2010

    >*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.

  28. #28 spangled drongo
    February 11, 2010

    Those last 4 years look a bit different somehow….

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

  29. #29 spangled drongo
    February 11, 2010

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

  30. #30 Mark
    February 11, 2010

    >*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.

  31. #31 foram
    February 11, 2010

    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 — all this is indispensably necessary.

  32. #32 jakerman
    February 11, 2010

    >*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.

  33. #33 Bernard J.
    February 11, 2010

    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.

  34. #34 spangled drongo
    February 11, 2010

    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.

  35. #35 Michael
    February 11, 2010

    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.

  36. #36 Chris O'Neill
    February 11, 2010

    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.

  37. #37 spangled drongo
    February 11, 2010

    Michael, there, there, old chap, I know how you poor menstruators must feel when you see it all come tumbling down:

    http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/02/final-humiliation-from-climategate.html

  38. #38 spangled drongo
    February 11, 2010

    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?

  39. #39 Michael
    February 11, 2010

    No answers of any substance from the drongo.

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

  40. #40 foram
    February 11, 2010

    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).

  41. #41 Bernard J.
    February 11, 2010

    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#comment-2265030). 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 Transport’s 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…

  42. #42 jakerman
    February 11, 2010

    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?

  43. #43 Michael
    February 11, 2010

    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/0521797462/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1265897669&sr=1-9-spell) – an excellent intro to the topic.

  44. #44 Joseph
    February 11, 2010

    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.

  45. #45 Joseph
    February 11, 2010

    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.

  46. #46 Chris O'Neill
    February 11, 2010

    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?

  47. #47 spangled drongo
    February 11, 2010

    “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/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.07

    “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.

  48. #48 Michael
    February 11, 2010

    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.

  49. #49 spangled drongo
    February 11, 2010

    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-81000-years-ago-1-meter-higher-while-co2-was-lower/

  50. #50 Vince Whirlwind
    February 11, 2010

    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…

  51. #51 Bernard J.
    February 11, 2010

    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.

  52. #52 spangled drongo
    February 11, 2010

    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.

  53. #53 spangled drongo
    February 11, 2010

    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.

  54. #54 spangled drongo
    February 11, 2010

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

  55. #55 Michael
    February 11, 2010

    drongo,

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

  56. #56 Bernard J.
    February 11, 2010

    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.

  57. #57 spangled drongo
    February 11, 2010

    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.

  58. #58 Bernard J.
    February 12, 2010

    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.

  59. #59 spangled drongo
    February 12, 2010

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

  60. #60 ewe2
    February 12, 2010

    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.

  61. #61 Chris O'Neill
    February 12, 2010

    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.

  62. #62 Chris O'Neill
    February 12, 2010

    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.

  63. #63 Joseph
    February 12, 2010

    @drongo: Deny this.

  64. #64 spangled drongo
    February 12, 2010

    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”

  65. #65 Bernard J.
    February 12, 2010

    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#comment-2262289). 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.

  66. #66 spangled drongo
    February 12, 2010

    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.

  67. #67 zoot
    February 13, 2010

    Some mothers do have them.

  68. #68 Bernard J.
    February 13, 2010

    Drongo.

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

  69. #69 Chris O'Neill
    February 13, 2010

    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.

  70. #70 spangled drongo
    February 13, 2010

    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.

  71. #71 spangled drongo
    February 13, 2010

    BTW Dumbo Doltoids,

    It looks like CSIRO even agree with me on their coloured maps:

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

  72. #72 Bernard J.
    February 14, 2010

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

    “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-81000-years-ago-1-meter-higher-while-co2-was-lower/)

    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.

  73. #73 Chris O'Neill
    February 14, 2010

    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.

  74. #74 spangled drongo
    February 14, 2010

    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”.

  75. #75 Stu
    February 14, 2010

    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?

  76. #76 Bernard J.
    February 14, 2010

    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#comment-2270120)?
    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.

  77. #77 jakerman
    February 14, 2010

    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!

  78. #78 spangled drongo
    February 14, 2010

    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.

  79. #79 zoot
    February 14, 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!!

  80. #80 spangled drongo
    February 14, 2010

    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.

    “It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We 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.”

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

  81. #81 Chris O'Neill
    February 14, 2010

    A blatant hypocrite:

    denial of the bleedin’ obvious

    I wonder what blatant hypocrite is denying and completely ignoring the bleeding obvious figure 1 in http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/amm/200604/church_hres.pdf ?

  82. #82 Chris O'Neill
    February 14, 2010

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

    *ignoring everything apart from his one favorite cherry-pick, of course.

  83. #83 Bernard J.
    February 15, 2010

    Drongo.

    Why is it that you so persistently avoid answering the [straighforward and absolutely critical questions about tidal measurement](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2274623) that I keep putting to you?

    Would it have to do with the demonstrated fact that you are speaking from your arse?

  84. #84 spangled drongo
    February 15, 2010

    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

  85. #85 jakerman
    February 15, 2010

    Drongo,

    You obviously believe you are onto something, but why not draw the [more enlightened into your fantasy](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2274640), why limit yourself to those who see your presentation here as evidence that you are complete dithering drongo who is immune to anything beyond your prejudice?

  86. #86 Bernard J.
    February 15, 2010

    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#comment-2273219).

    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#comment-2275065).

    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…

  87. #87 zoot
    February 15, 2010

    Drongo’s mouth, meet Drongo’s foot.

  88. #88 spangled drongo
    February 15, 2010

    “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.

  89. #89 Bernard J.
    February 15, 2010

    Who builds a sea wall behind a “shallow choke”?

  90. #90 Bernard J.
    February 15, 2010

    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?

  91. #91 foram
    February 15, 2010

    YAWN!

    One sea wall does not a global dataset make.

  92. #92 Chris O'Neill
    February 15, 2010

    Bullsh!tter:

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

    Bull. Sh!t.

  93. #93 Lee
    February 15, 2010

    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.

  94. #94 Joseph
    February 15, 2010

    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.

  95. #95 spangled drongo
    February 15, 2010

    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.

  96. #96 Joseph
    February 15, 2010

    @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.

  97. #97 Michael
    February 15, 2010

    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.

  98. #98 Shorter Drongo
    February 15, 2010

    >*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.

  99. #99 spangled drongo
    February 15, 2010

    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.

  100. #100 Special Drongo
    February 15, 2010

    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*