The Australian‘s War on Science 45

The Australian Government has set up a Coasts and Climate Change Council to plan how to adapt to increases in sea levels and cyclone intensity that global warming will most likely bring. Since its about adaption to climate change and planning for the future, in a rational world even on opponent of mitigation like The Australian would be on board, but they are not. The Australian is certain that scientists are wrong about sea level rise and they have an impeccable authority:

Bondi veteran Lee Boman has swum at the beach for more than 30 years and was adamant he had seen “no change” to the coastline over that period. “Nothing too drastic that indicates it is going to be changed in the future,” said Mr Boman, 53.

Take that, scientists! And in case that by itself is not convincing, Boman’s picture is splashed across five columns on the front page. Now Boman looks like a decent sort and I wouldn’t mind hearing more from him, so if The Australian sacked the people who write its boringly predictable editorials and hired Boman to write them instead, I’d be all for it. But if you want to know whether sea level is rising or not, you need to break out the tide gauges and satellites and let the scientists analyze them. Here’s the result from CSIRO and a graph you will never see printed in The Australian:

i-b61ba55f77ccc7130aa283bc404d9f77-alt_gmsl_seas_rem.png

Next The Australian trots out Bob Carter, also not an expert on sea level changes.

Bob Carter, a geologist and environmental scientist with James Cook University in Queensland, said Senator Wong’s comments appeared to be an attempt to panic the public.

Pointing to historical rates of sea level rise of an average 1.6mm per year globally over the past 100 years, Mr Carter said it was reasonable to expect a total rise of 16cm in a century.

IF we check with the CSIRO we find:

We have used a combination of historical tide-gauge data and satellite-altimeter data to estimate global averaged sea level change from 1870 to 2004. During this period, global-averaged sea level rose almost 20 cm, with an average rate of rise of about 1.7 mm/yr over the 20th Century. The sea level record indicates a statistically significant increase in the rate of rise between 1870 to 2004.

Looks like Carter got his numbers from the CSIRO and misinterpreted them. There is no reason to expect the rate of sea level rise to drop back to what it was in the 20th century, in fact its likely to accelerate.

Against this The Australian brings out its third expert:

Patrick Doab, 63, said he had been visiting Bondi nearly every Sunday since the 1960s and was not worried anything would change.

Of course. This article was written by Lanai Vasek and Matthew Franklin, who really should be ashamed of themselves for stealing this story by Drew Warne-Smith and James Madden, published in The Australian in November:

By comparison, the NSW government’s projections – based on global modelling by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as CSIRO regional analysis – equate to a future rise of about 6.6mm a year. Such a projection has caused widespread concern for landowners and developers, derision from “climate sceptics” within the scientific community and even some head-scratching from Wollongong locals such as Kevin Court, 80.

“I have swum at this beach every day for the past 50 years, and nothing much changes here,” Mr Court said yesterday as he emerged from the surf at Wollongong’s North Beach, just a short paddle from the Port Kembla gauging station.

This, too, was also front-paged with a picture of a bloke in swimmers to prove those silly scientists wrong

But that wasn’t the only shot that The Australian fired in its War on Science today. There was another article, this one by Pia Akerman (yes, she’s the daughter of this guy). Akerman wheels out Ian Plimer to rebut Penny Wong’s speech:

Geology academic and leading climate change sceptic Ian Plimer dismissed Senator Wong’s defence of the IPCC, saying she was “talking codswallop”.

“She has absolutely no idea how temperature is measured, she has no idea of the algorithms used to correct the urban heat island effect,” Professor Plimer said. “She has no idea we’ve gone from about 9000 to 3000 measuring stations, most of which are now in industrialised areas, in cities or around airports, where we have hot fumes coming out of aeroplanes.”

It’s possible that Wong does not know what the algorithms are, but it is certain that Plimer does not. The reduction in the number of stations does not bias the temperature record as Zeke Hausfather explains. And Menne analyzed Watt’s data and found that poorly sited stations produced a cooling bias.

Finally there was an editorial that claimed:

Which is precisely why — as one of the world’s lowest carbon emitters — we need to bide our time before rushing into an ETS.

Yes, Australia is almost in a tie with Mali — look at the graph below.

i-ff7d19d7acf5f40275ff1fbee6b558ff-national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions_per_capita.png

Comments

  1. #1 spangled drongo
    February 22, 2010

    Mike,

    Here’s a bit of good “science” that the sceptics would bury. The rotten sods!

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/16/another-ipcc-error-antarctic-sea-ice-increase-underestimated-by-50/

  2. #2 David Duff
    February 22, 2010

    Mr. Jakerman, I am confused again – hey, no surpise there, then!

    Those who assert that the science is settled agree that the jury is still out!

    Is this similar to the sort of thing ‘St. Barack of Obama’ and his politbureau mean when they say the ‘Gitmo’ prisoners will have a fair trial and will be found guilty?

  3. #3 Bruce Sharp
    February 22, 2010

    David Duff, you’re mistaken. The CSIRO excerpt that Tim cited mentions that they have 134 years of data, and mentions the rate of increase in a contiguous 100-year period within that data. There’s nothing at all wrong with that. You were the one who tried to compare that 100-year period to the remaining years, and you did it with a method that isn’t logically sound, for the reasons I explained above. And on top of that, you got the math wrong.

    Regarding the Guardian article you cite: As jakerman points out, that just shows that you don’t seem to know what the jury is debating.

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2010

    [Mangled Drongo](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2292624).

    I’m a “cheese chopper” from a line of clog-wearing, dike-building, windmill-riding, canal-vaulting, ice-skating stereotypical Dutchmen. And let me tell you, my family and friends back in the Netherlands are very concerned at the changing sea level.

    Congratulations though on the progression of your discourse. I didn’t think that you could descend much further, but you have shown that you can sink lower than a maggot in a grave with your racist slurs. I notice too that you have completely abandoned any pretense at being able to address the science and the substantive points on this and on the [Bolt in one graph thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php), after I asked you [not once](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2289239) but [twice](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2289673) on this thread to so do.

    A little while back [I posted an exerpt from Erik the Viking](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/what_do_superfreakonomics_and.php#comment-2021753), mocking the attitude of those such as yourself. I realise now that too many words overload your brain, so I will direct you to Rixaeton’s post that [convenient links to the pretty-pictures version of the same](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_hate_mail_campaign_against.php#comment-2293423).

    The sad thing is, I know you won’t understand any more than the Hy-Brasilians did, why your theories are bunkum.

  5. #5 Raging Bee
    February 22, 2010

    In my area not only are the beaches widening and the map of Australia expanding but the sandbanks offshore are also increasing.

    Um, drongo, did it ever occur to you that this could be because ocean currrents are depositing sand on certain coastlines, while possibly taking it away from others? Also, you may want to remember that there are plenty of people in the US who observe their coastlines RECEDING due to the same effect: as in, THEIR BEACH HOUSES ARE GETTING WASHED AWAY both because of rising sea-levels, and because of beach erosion.

    drongo is an idiot for thinking he’s refuted rising sea-levels; and doubly stupid for thinking his arguments even sound plausible.

  6. #6 Paul UK
    February 22, 2010

    Drongo said:
    >You could always step across the ditch and check with the cheese choppers.
    They’ll tell you that there is no accelleration in SLR and that SLs were higher in the MWP when they didn’t have satellites telling them otherwise.

    Actually it is the French that provide the longer sea level records that do show the rates have accelerated and compare well to UK records. Suggest you check Roeland Gehrels work.

  7. #7 Paul UK
    February 22, 2010

    That should have been Roland Gehrel.

  8. #8 Paul UK
    February 22, 2010

    I back some of the other calls here to ‘cage’ Drongo in their own area. They are time wasters and are not contributing anything useful.

  9. #9 jakerman
    February 22, 2010

    David Duff writes:

    >*Mr. Jakerman, I am confused again – hey, no surpise there, then!
    Those who assert that the science is settled agree that the jury is still out!*

    I can help you there David Duff, start by not cherry picking (and miscontextualizing) my quote. I’ll adjust your question accordingly:

    >*Those who assert that the science is settled [on the question of the rising mean temperature] agree that the jury is still out [on others issues]!*

    The problem for David Duff is that he doesn’t know what the scientific jury is debating. Duff seems to be hoping that if there is uncertainty on any question then there must be equal uncertainty on the fundamentals.

    The science is settled that the earth is warming. Other issues where the science is in overwhelming agreement (with very strong evidence) is that humans have contributed to that warming.

    There is sufficient evidence to have high confidence that humans activity produced most of the warming since the the middle of the 20th century.

    There is considerable evidence supporting calculations of the climate sensitivity to the enhanced greenhouse effect. This gives us a probability range for future warming in response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

    There are other internal dynamics that have lower degrees of certainty. And fine resolution timing of specific events is one of them. E.g. how long have massive ice sheets melted in response to warming in the past?

  10. #10 Dr Who
    February 22, 2010

    How much more of the bleeding obvious do you need Voodoo witch nit.

    The current league table is based upon a per capita in the vain hope that as a league table it apportions the responsibility for Co2 emmissions equitably.

    However as we are talking about a global problem that needs to deal with nation states, a per capita doesnt tell anyone anything about the real impact of these emmissions on the environment, because a lot of the Co2 is absorbed locally in the bio mass and the sea.

    So a real measure of the impact we are having is pretty low compared to European countries for eg.

    Perhaps an even better measure for a league table would be total emmissions/total area.

    ..but per capita on its own is crap.

    Like I said, if Australia and others hadnt been so piss weak and dumb in their negotiations much better measures could have been constructed, with benefits all round.

  11. #11 Witch Dr
    February 22, 2010

    Fail Dr Voodoo,

    How would you work your Aristocrat’s measure? Sounds like its only purpose is for posturing.

    Supporters of the democratic CO2 per captia metric want to allocate targets based on their measure. You have’t made the same case for your genocidal metric.

    Prove yourself to be of substance, provide the details. Your continued failing to show the how you would used your Aristocrat’s measure shows the opposite of substance.

  12. #12 Dave
    February 22, 2010

    Pauk UK,

    You quote a sinking of the land in your area of 0.5mm a year but a sea level rise in excess of that.

    My question is, how on earth can you state that the particular sinking of the land in the area you live in is 0.5mm a year? Who does and where are these measurements published and verified, if they can be at all?

  13. #13 Dr Who
    February 22, 2010

    Voodo nit wit

    Whats ” genocidal” , ” aristocratic” about my suggestion for refining the league table to take account of land/sea area involving global warming and mitigation.

    You seem to have a problem with understanding simple concepts, and comprehending that per capitas on its own doesnt tell the full/right story.

    Forget it sweet heart I am obviously wasting my time.

  14. #14 Michael Hauber
    February 22, 2010

    If the deniers had any brains perhaps they’d point out that the CSIRO sea level chart shows a much more uniform rise than the University of Colorado sea level chart, despite both claiming to be from the same TOPEX/Jason source data.

    Does anyone have any idea why that might be?

    Perhaps the great global climate change consipiracy was able to afford bribes for CSIRO but not for Uni Colorado….

    On local sea level observations, I’ve really noticed in the last couple of years that the beach around the northern Sunshine Coast appears to be receeding. Sand dunes are eroding to the point of undermining trees that look to have been there at least 10-20 years. Whether this is sea level rise or changing currents or changing sand management practices somewhere or something I haven’t thought of I will not be so hasty as to draw a conclusion on.

  15. #15 spangled drongo
    February 22, 2010

    Bernard,

    Cheese Choppers is racist like Beefeaters for Poms or Froggies for French. Get real!

    Your family, friends and ancestors have been dyking polders for thousands of years for very good reasons and yes, they are probably more concerned about SLs than anyone else on earth but they use PLAN B not plan A and they have coped marvelously for millenia.

    What you have to do Bernie, is to sort the fairy tales from reality.

  16. #16 John
    February 22, 2010

    John,

    That “thesaurus” a good drop?

    Mine was funnier.

  17. #17 spangled drongo
    February 22, 2010

    Michael Hauber,

    If you paid attention you’d find that that had already been done. Possibly it’s due to one applying the inverse barometer and the other not. But there are so many other “adjustments” for satellites that if you weren’t sceptical you’d be foolish.

  18. #18 Dr Voodoo Who Do
    February 22, 2010

    Voodoo Which Dr,

    >*You seem to have a problem with understanding simple concepts, and comprehending that per capitas on its own doesnt tell the full/right story.*

    Dr Who Do, this is a blatant strawman, no metric provides “the full story”. And you’ve failed to show how your Aristocrat’s metric provides the “right” story.

    You have been given ample opportunity to support your claim that the Oz was correct, and you’ve failed dismally by not even providing detail of our your Aristocrat’s metric would be employed, let alone how it is better than the per Capita metric.

    If you were really savvy you could have made a shot at trying to combine the humanitarian metric of CO2 per capita with your CO2 /m^2 metric to argue how a combined metric could work. But you didn’t, I guess you weren’t able.

    [My initial judgement of your game](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2292636) has been supported by your subsequent responses. You have completely failed to justify your Aristocrat’s metric in place of the democratic CO2 per capita metric.

    You could have provided the detail of how you would operationalise your preferred measures, as the CO2 per capita advocates have done, but you failed.

    Evidence shows you intend to use your metric for nothing more than attempting apologetics for the gross distortion made by the Oz.

    Then you ask:

    >*What’s ” genocidal” , ” aristocratic” about my suggestion for refining the league table to take account of land/sea area involving global warming and mitigation.*

    What’s Aristocratic about your CO2 per area of land metric compared to the democratic CO2 per capita? Simply if you own more land can get more privilege, more pollution rights, and hence greater feedback/concentration of wealth.

    What’s Genocidal about your CO2 per area of land metric compared to the humanitarian CO2 per capita? Your genocidal metric if deployed enhances incentives for land grabs and rewards population destruction has much as CO2 reduction.

    If the nations set targets according to your Aristocrats metric CO2/land area, it would produce powerfully perverse incentives. Perverse incentives that would have most disturbing weight in regions of high vulnerablity, where desperation is high and civic stablity is low.

    This is what you would have found if you went to the effort of operationalizing the detail of your metric. But you didn’t make that effort so you didn’t see your folly.

  19. #19 Mark
    February 22, 2010

    Micheal ask:

    >*the CSIRO sea level chart shows a much more uniform rise than the University of Colorado sea level chart, despite both claiming to be from the same TOPEX/Jason source data. Does anyone have any idea why that might be?*

    To which Drongo jumps in with:

    >*If you paid attention you’d find that that had already been done. Possibly it’s due to one applying the inverse barometer and the other not.*

    But Drongo should have some self awareness:

    [Drongo previously asked]:(http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2265165)
    >*Why does the U of Col get it so differently from CSIRO?*

    To which it was [expalined for him](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2265191):

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

  20. #20 Mark
    February 22, 2010

    Whoopsy, [there you are](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2265165) Mr Drongo.

    So Michael, your’s was not a silly question at all.

  21. #21 spangled drongo
    February 22, 2010

    Mark,

    Thanks for that. Looks like I also don’t pay attention.

    Now, about the rest of the story…? Do you know how the rest of the “adjustments” are done?

  22. #23 spangled drongo
    February 22, 2010

    Mark,

    No answer? Why, because you don’t know, because you can’t score points or because it’s a bit dodgy?

  23. #24 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2010

    Give over drongo.

    If sea level rise continues as the best science indicates that it will, not even the engineering aptitude of the Dutch will be able to prevent some rather nasty indundation of parts of the country during extreme weather events.

    And over on the other side of the Channel, the English are starting to worry about their low-lying eastern coastal regions, even more than the Dutch do about their dikes.

    However, let’s not permit ourselves to be distracted from your original claim. Remember when I referred you [to this](http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2009.pdf), and specifically to figure 17? How exactly is it that these are data refuted by your seawall “observations”? Perhaps in your response you could also refute the weight of evidence more generally for sea level rise [in the South Pacific](http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60102/IDO60102.2009_1.pdf)

    But perhaps you really are just interested in what lies close to home.

    And it is interesting – for example, [this reference](http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2009.pdf) illustrates the point I made somewhere about the fact that raw tidal data should not be used directly to make inferences about sea level rise. Have a look at the Brisbane data – it is apparent that the datum reference for the 1967-1973 gauge readings is shifted downward with respect to the post-1980 datum. When the data are corrected for the disparity in datum points (amongst other necessary corrections), the annual mean sea level trend for Brisbane is determined to be 1.82 mm/yr – increase.

    Of course, you are certain to dispute it by saying that the data are fudged, and your seawall shows a particular relationship with king tide events under disparate meteorological conditions. Once again I say “fine”. Show exactly where the professionals are wrong in their analyses, and show us your own data and analysis.

    Why can you not do this?

    Let’s begin with a simple question to start things rolling: considering figure 2 in the last link, which gauges do you dispute, and upon what basis do you so do?

  24. #25 spangled drongo
    February 22, 2010

    Mark,

    Thanks for that. Please ignore my impatience.

    But if they are correct and yet not accelerating as is also claimed, how does this tie in with past higher SLs?

  25. #26 Mark
    February 22, 2010

    Mr Drongo asks:

    >*No answer? Why, because you don’t know, because you can’t score points or because it’s a bit dodgy?*

    Perhaps Mr Drongo you missed [my answer](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2295209). Regardless it was interesting to read some of your revealed internal machinations.

  26. #27 Chris O'Neill
    February 22, 2010
    After 70 years nothing was happening and people didn’t wet the bed on the 6th of January 2009.

    drongo:

    temperatures and SLs are a bit different. eg temps vary somewhat with latitude whereas SLs “vigorously seek equilibrium” world wide.

    I wasn’t talking about temperatures at different latitudes and that’s beside the point anyway. The fact you ignore is that even the whole-year average sea level at one location can vary more than 100 mm from one year to the next. Is that your idea of “vigorously seek equilibrium”? What a load of cr@p you talk.

  27. #28 Dr Who
    February 22, 2010

    Your up yourself Voodoo nit wit

    No where have I said or implied that one would replace the other but it is additional to. On its own per capita doesnt tell the true/real story.

    You aristocratic argument is just desperate greenoid academic twaddle.

    Even the use of the word aristocratic gives you away.

  28. #29 Mark
    February 22, 2010
  29. #30 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2010

    [David Duff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2287579).

    Am I to take it that you are barracking for drongo and [his side-kick Graham](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2287098)?

    It appears that you are a little concerned about the nature of Holgate’s data, and how it compares with other results for sea level rise. I think that I have linked to [this page](http://www.sealevelrise.info/cms/Reports%20and%20Papers) previously, but if not, consider for example figure 1 of [this briefing](http://www.sealevelrise.info/access/repository/resource/0401e97c-acde-102c-bf59-005056996a56/BR01_SLR_080911.pdf) specifically.

    Holgate (and Woodworth) agree very well with Church et al, and with the satellite data. There’s no wiggle room to dispute the demonstrated rise of sea level, unless one is going to don a lead-foil cap and accuse the Climatati of having a Bathymetrati chapter of co-conspiratorial brethren.

    Oh, right…

  30. #31 spangled drongo
    February 22, 2010

    Bernard,

    HATs are theoretical tides and many externals increase them. At my benchmark the ’74 flood was about 1.5 metres above the king tide mark and the current was still running UPSTREAM at its peak. IOW this rise was possibly all due to the cyclone and sea surge. Not the flood.

    For the umpteenth time I repeat that it is only my estuarine benchmark that I refer to. Many factors increase HATs but one of the few that don’t is SLs going nowhere.

  31. #32 Chris O'Neill
    February 22, 2010

    Silly old Duffer:

    Is this similar to the sort of thing ‘St. Barack of Obama’ and his politbureau mean when they say the ‘Gitmo’ prisoners will have a fair trial and will be found guilty?

    Perhaps different from the previous government’s idea that waterboarding those prisoners was a reasonable interrogation technique.

  32. #33 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2010

    Drongo.

    You might like to compare [the annual mean sea level trend for Brisbane](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2295222) with Holgate’s and Woodworth’s mean rate of sea level rise for the last for decades of the 20th century, as given in figure 1 of the briefing that I [mentioned above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2295305).

    How far does the Bathymetrati conspiracy go?

  33. #34 Dr Voodoo Who Do
    February 22, 2010

    Dr Who writes:

    >*No where have I said or implied that one would replace the other but it is additional to. On its own per capita doesnt tell the true/real story.*

    More straw from the voodoo denialist. I challenged you to show how you could use your Aristocrat’s metric to tell the “right” story.

    One demostration of how bankrupt your lasts reply is that it is refuted by [the post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2295001) you were supposedly responding to:

    >Dr Who Do, this is a blatant strawman, no metric provides “the full story”. And you’ve failed to show how your Aristocrat’s metric provides the “right” story.

    >You have been given ample opportunity to support your claim that the Oz was correct, and you’ve failed dismally by not even providing detail of our your Aristocrat’s metric would be employed, let alone how it is better than the per Capita metric.

    >**If you were really savvy you could have made a shot at trying to combine the humanitarian metric of CO2 per capita with your CO2 /m^2 metric to argue how a combined metric could work. But you didn’t, I guess you weren’t able.**

    >You could have provided the detail of how you would operationalise your preferred measures, as the CO2 per capita advocates have done, but you failed.

    Fail, fail and more fail.

  34. #35 Dr Voodoo Who Do
    February 22, 2010

    Failed Dr Who says:

    >*You aristocratic argument is just desperate greenoid academic twaddle. Even the use of the word aristocratic gives you away.*

    In other words you are reduced to empty unsupported name calling in the face your inablity to respond sensibly to [this explanation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2295001):

    >Then [Dr Who] ask:

    >>*What’s ” genocidal” , ” aristocratic” about my suggestion for refining the league table to take account of land/sea area involving global warming and mitigation.*

    >What’s Aristocratic about your CO2 per area of land metric compared to the democratic CO2 per capita? Simply if you own more land can get more privilege, more pollution rights, and hence greater feedback/concentration of wealth.

    >What’s Genocidal about your CO2 per area of land metric compared to the humanitarian CO2 per capita? Your genocidal metric if deployed enhances incentives for land grabs and rewards population destruction has much as CO2 reduction.

    >If the nations set targets according to your Aristocrats metric CO2/land area, it would produce powerfully perverse incentives. Perverse incentives that would have most disturbing weight in regions of high vulnerablity, where desperation is high and civic stablity is low.

    >This is what you would have found if you went to the effort of operationalizing the detail of your metric. But you didn’t make that effort so you didn’t see your folly.

  35. #36 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2010

    [Drongo](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2295315).

    Nice to see that you have taken on board seriously my explanation to you of Highest Astronomical Tides, after you [were so confused about such in the beginning](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2289239).

    With respect to the flood of 1974, you are possibly referring to the system that also resulted in the [wreck of the Sygna](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sygna) off Stockton Beach. I well remember that night, because a huge tree came down in the grounds of the local school and woke people for hundreds of meters around.

    Whether or not this is the weather to which you refer, what on earth does your flood say about sea level rise? My point, and that of others, is that one cannot use such extreme stochastic meteorological events with which to construct an accurate measure of sea level rise to date.

    This is a completely different point to saying that future sea level rise (especially if the rate of such increases) will compound the effects of extreme stochastic meteorological events. It appears that you are now confabulating the two.

    Oh, and with respect to:

    Many factors increase HATs but one of the few that don’t [sic] is SLs going nowhere.

    As [I have previous explained to you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2287098), sea level rise is accounted for in a prediction of a Highest Astronomical Tide, so of course sea level rise will not “increase HATs”, except where such sea level rise increase also alters local hydrodynamic characteristics.

    You really are the master of strawmen, red herrings, confabulation, obfuscation, avoidance and other sundry techniques of dissemblance, aren’t you?

    Are you actually constitutionally capable of making a direct, evidence-supported, coherent point?

    Huh?

  36. #37 Chris O'Neill
    February 22, 2010

    drongo:

    Many factors increase HATs but one of the few that don’t is SLs going nowhere.

    One of the many things that old drongo doesn’t realize is the effect on his credibility when his arguments end in a strawman.

  37. #38 Dr Who
    February 22, 2010

    Well mr Voodo nit wit I would have thought that it was a no brainer that with the area metric included, the nation states with a large area and relatively low populations would be encouraged under the global protocols to preserve and enhance their areas of bio mass so that the maximum amount of Co2 was soaked up eg Brazil, Russia, Australia parts of Africa etc.

    So what was a negative under the per capita alone measure gets turned into a positive

    No wonder people are getting dis enchanted with academics

  38. #39 John
    February 23, 2010
  39. #40 Dr Voodoo Who Do
    February 23, 2010

    Dr Who writes:

    >*it was a no brainer that with the area metric included…*

    How would you include it? The details are important.

    >*nation states with a large area and relatively low populations would be encouraged under the global protocols to preserve and enhance their areas of bio mass so that the maximum amount of Co2 was soaked up eg Brazil, Russia, Australia parts of Africa etc.*

    You continue to ignore the flip side. CO2 per capita encourages preservation of bio mass as does CO2 per m^2. But the flip side of your genocidal metric is the power of its perverse incentives.

    Not only is your metric is open to abuse, but you haven’t shown how including your metric with the per captia metric provides a more usesable or better metric than CO2 per captia alone.

    With CO2 per capita, the total CO2 allocation is dependent of agreed targets, so the burden grows and shrinks (depending on the population) but does so in a more equally way.

    Your metric changes that, and it says those with more land can burn more and those with less land use less.

    How would you prevent your metric from driving people out of Europe and Japane and into where? Russia?, the Amazon? the Congo? How is pushing people into biomass hotspots going to preserve those hot spots?

  40. #41 jakerman
    February 23, 2010

    Dr Who writes:

    >*I would have thought that it was a no brainer that with the [CO2 per unit] area metric included, the nation states with a large area and relatively low populations would be encouraged under the global protocols to preserve and enhance their areas of bio mass so that the maximum amount of Co2 was soaked up eg Brazil, Russia, Australia parts of Africa etc.*

    How does allocating CO2 rights according to land area ecourage the *maximum amount of Co2 […]soaked up*?

    Its the price on carbon that tends toward CO2 efficiency. Dr Who is just allocating the carbon permits in a different way. Dr Who allocates by land area rather than per person. In effect the major difference is Dr Who wants a system that rewards those who have more land area. (You are a white Australian arn’t you Dr Who.)

    I wonder what arguments would have been tried on by those who argued to keep the status quo back when only land owners could vote?

  41. #42 spangled drongo
    February 23, 2010

    “sea level rise is accounted for in a prediction of a Highest Astronomical Tide”

    But in spite of that Bernie, old chap, at my place it was 20 cms below 1963 readings. Sad I know , but true.

    That’s the main “evidence supported, coherent point” I have been trying to make for a couple of weeks but denialism amongst Doltoids is not diffident.

    Now what would you have me do? 1/ Take you all there and show you and you’d believe me? 2/ Take you all there in midwinter at midnight during the next HAT and you’d believe me? or 3/ The above plus take you all there in another 47 years and you’d all believe me?

  42. #43 Vince Whirlwind
    February 23, 2010

    Yes, Spangled Drongo, you need to publish your data.

    That’s where we get our information from – people who publish their data and people who analyse it and people who generally contribute to our state of knowledge in this area.
    The published data shows a current average 3mm/year rise in sea level.

    So far *you* have contributed nothing beyond typing a hell of a lot of empty words.

  43. #44 Dr Who
    February 23, 2010

    Well its pretty easy to spot the greenies, who wouldnt know an asset if they tripped over one.

    Tell me, will land biomass soak up co2 or not.?

    Will the sea be soaking up co2 or not?

    If a nation state has large land area and large sea area why shouldnt they be expected and required to accommodate theirs and other states Co2— it would be happening anyway.

    Doesnt suit the real agenda does it to consider it this this way.

    No wonder people are getting very disenchanted about academia in general.

  44. #45 Chris O'Neill
    February 23, 2010

    Deliberately dense drongo:

    another 47 years and you’d all believe me

    We’re still waiting for you to explain what your “vigorously seek equilibrium” means. i.e. what does it have to do with the undeniable fact that even average sea level at one location varies quite significantly from year to year or month to month or shorter periods. e.g. the annual average sea level in 1911 at the Sydney gauge was not bested for 45 years. Imagine what a single king tide could do.

  45. #46 Chris O'Neill
    February 23, 2010

    Well its pretty easy to spot the greenies

    Even easier to spot strawmen, e.g.

    Tell me, will land biomass soak up co2 or not.?

    Will the sea be soaking up co2 or not?

    Also:

    If a nation state has large land area and large sea area why shouldnt they be expected and required to accommodate theirs and other states Co2

    And why, pray tell, would they be interested in doing that?

  46. #47 Dr Voodoo Who Do
    February 23, 2010

    Dr who failed,

    You’ve laid down your ideological agenda pretty clearly, now all you have to do is back up you claims, which you’ve failed to do so far.

    Now the Dr who failed so many times asks:

    >*Tell me, will land biomass soak up co2 or not.? Will the sea be soaking up co2 or not?*

    Which are redundant questions, what the Dr who failed needs to ask, is how would allocating more CO2 permits to people who have more land make nature work better or be fair? It would do neither. Giving more emissions permits to people with more land doesn’t protect that land, it just gives people an unequal share of emissions.

    Based on his recent performance I doubt the Dr who failed will get it, I predict more retreat to his idealogical name calling. A sign of his inability to defend his bankrupt argument.

  47. #48 jakerman
    February 23, 2010

    Dr Who you’ve dodged my question, I asked:

    >How does allocating CO2 rights according to land area ecourage *the maximum amount of Co2 […]soaked up?*

    Its the price on carbon that promotes CO2 efficiency. DW is allocating the carbon permits in a different way, and DW’s way is not more efficient. Dr Who allocates by land area rather than per person. In effect the difference is DW wants a system that rewards those who have more land.

  48. #49 spangled drongo
    February 23, 2010

    143
    Yes, Spangled Drongo, you need to publish your data.

    Vince, I’ve been telling you and the rest of your lot for days. How many times do you need? I’ve also told a couple of govt scientists.

    Doltoid O’Neill,

    You apparently didn’t take my advice about reading up on Archimedes in the bath last night or the penny may have dropped. Anyway, give it a go tonight and try pushing the water up one end.
    Also don’t try comparing SL threats with bushfire threats. They’re apples and oranges and you’ll find that any SLR caused by AGW will give you plenty of warning. That is of course if you check for yourself…….

  49. #50 guthrie
    February 23, 2010

    Dr Who – in reality, the seas soak up CO2 up to a point, but then the upper layers which can take up the most CO2 will become more saturated and reduce their uptake. Therefore the response is unlikely to be linear or identical over time.
    For biomass, CO2 is already being absorbed and resulting in a slight increase in biomass. THis can be aided by proper land use care, but large regions such as the Amazon may well become CO2 producers when their climate changes over the next century, and I think the same goes for some of the boreal forests as well.

  50. #51 Paul UK
    February 23, 2010

    Dave:
    >My question is, how on earth can you state that the particular sinking of the land in the area you live in is 0.5mm a year? Who does and where are these measurements published and verified, if they can be at all?

    Well like all good scientists, I asked the bloke swimming down at the beach. If it’s good for Australian media, it must be good for me.

  51. #52 Chris O'Neill
    February 23, 2010

    drongo:

    You apparently didn’t take my advice about reading up on Archimedes in the bath

    So your points in your bath vary in average level by more than 100 mm like points in the ocean, do they? Riiight.

    Stupid old drongo, you still don’t get the point about how sea level at one point varies. You seem to think it only varies in consistent ways with a recurrence time much less than 47 years and blithely ignore the observed fact that it doesn’t. Considering how long you argued that your king tide observations cast doubt on satellite observations of global average SLR, it’s not surprising how slow a learner you are in this case.

    any SLR caused by AGW will give you plenty of warning

    Oh whoopee doo. That takes care of all the problems like salt encroachment in the vast area of agricultural land near sea level and the accelerated rate of coastal erosion when sea level rises to levels not previously attacked by wave action. Stupid old drongo has a new lesson for us, a problem is not a problem if it gives us plenty of warning.

  52. #53 Lotharsson
    February 23, 2010

    Dr Who, your fundamental problem is twofold:

    1) emissions != absorptions (a.k.a. emissions offsets), and you seem to be conflating the two

    2) anthropogenic changes to net emissions (which includes anthropogenic changes to absorptions when netted out) are the key factor in anthropogenic climate change.

    Giving more emissions permits to those who already have more land does nothing to reduce the net anthropogenic emissions, which is the key goal here. It doesn’t offer a better way to reduce anthropogenic emissions, nor does it encourage more anthropogenic absorption. It merely makes the rich richer and the poor poorer whilst not helping the climate compared to per capita schemes.

    What’s more, your apparent goals are already in line with a per capita scheme. If we speculate that land and sea area can be utilised more effectively (i.e. to increase anthropogenic absorption, perhaps over time with the aid of new technology), then those who are land-rich in a world where there’s demand for emissions offsets will see their land rise in value – precisely because there’s a cap on emissions that drives demand for offsets. (Furthermore, you might want to consider that per capita limits increases the number of potential consumers for offsets, which likely raises the price.)

    So the negotiators and politicians probably aren’t anywhere near as stupid as you make them out to be.

  53. #54 spangled drongo
    February 23, 2010

    “So your points in your bath vary in average level by more than 100 mm like points in the ocean,”

    DO’N,

    With only around 100 mm SL variation spread across the worlds oceans with all the different forces that they experience every minute of the day is a very good example of them “vigorously seeking equilibrium”. I find it amazing that you can’t comprehend that.

    “a problem is not a problem if it gives us plenty of warning.”

    Y’know, I thought we have had that salt problem for.. er..let me see, ever since Australia had an inland sea. But don’t let that stop you from inventing a few more.

  54. #55 Paul UK
    February 23, 2010

    Re: Drongo and Archimedes.

    You need to take your bath and water into a no/low gravity situation so that the main masses exerting a gravitation field are just the water and bath, you might then be closer to being realistic, although the baths mass would be far to low.

    The problem your poor modelling situation has, is that the amount of water is far to small, in comparison to the earths mass.
    Maybe if you made 1 second, say equal 10 years, then your bath model would be more realistic on an ‘earth’ scale. eg. the movement would be in slow motion.
    50 years or longer is roughly how long a huge mass of water would take to redistribute itself around the planet, if kicked out of place by a giant foot.

  55. #56 spangled drongo
    February 23, 2010

    Paul UK,

    Interesting thought. There have been some really big tsunamis that must have stirred the pot such as the one in Japan reportedly 250 feet high but more often there are constant storm forces that cause surges and currents all the time but in spite of these multiple random forces the ocean is relatively level. Probably less than the thickness of a human hair over the surface of a bath tub.

  56. #57 Paul UK
    February 23, 2010

    Drongo:
    You are talking about wave propagation, that isn’t the same as physical movement of masses of water, to achieve a level.

    Wave propagation doesn’t actually result in much water being moved. It is more to do with the transmission of energy.

    However for the water from glaciers to distribute evenly over the planet, it would take many, many years. Also such a movement is less energy intensive, unlike a wave which starts from a single point of energy.

    At various points around the earth you have ‘bottle necks’ where the flow of water is slowed down (water is subject to Newtonian physics, skin friction, fluid friction etc.).
    eg. if the Atlantic was a higher level than the Pacific, it would take many years to achieve some sort of level.

    Gravity of large masses will also have an impact regional sea levels.

  57. #58 Bernard J.
    February 23, 2010

    [Drongo](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2295633).

    You are so flagrantly oblivious to the most basic, most fundamental, points being put to you that I am starting to wonder if you have an intellectual impairment.

    But in spite of that Bernie, old chap, at my place it was 20 cms below 1963 readings. Sad I know , but true.

    That’s the main “evidence supported, coherent point” I have been trying to make for a couple of weeks…

    If, at your “place it was 20 cms below 1963 readings”, so bloody what?! You are comparing two essentially random events.

    I have repeatedly told you that the predicted astronomical tide height is confounded by a wide variety of stochastic meteorological and hydrodynamic parameters. Amongst these, but certainly not restricted to such, is barometric pressure.

    Fact:

    Tides are calculated with the assumption of a barometric pressure of 1013 millibar.

    Fact:

    A decrease in pressure of one millibar will increase sea level by approximately one centimetre.

    Fact:

    Most stormy conditions occur with atmospheric pressures well below 1000 mbar, and indeed often well below 990mbar.

    Fact:

    From my very own weather station, which plots over a dozen meteorological parameters every 20 minutes, I can tell you that barometric pressure can drop 30 millibars or more in a matter of hours, and further, that seemingly similar storm conditions can be characterised by a difference of a score or more millibar.

    Fact:

    Even given that you were able to accurately read sea level against a seawall in surging storm conditions to the nearest centimetre (you present no evidence that you did), it only requires that the 1963 tide of which you speak occurred during barometric conditions 20mbar or so less than occurred in January this year, for the sea level to be 20cm higher on that occasion in 1963 than in 2010.

    20mbar is small change for an extreme weather event, and if 1963 was characterised by an especially deep low pressure system then there is no reason in the world to expect that every subsequent January will oblige with a similar low pressure.

    Fact:

    Tide gauge measurements at the two official sites flanking your seawall both show clear evidence of sea level rise over recent decades, congruent with the order of magnitude of around 2 mm/yr reported for much of southern Queensland and for indeed for much of the planet.

    Fact:

    You have no case, because your “evidence” and your reasoning hold less water than a cotton prawn net that has hung mouldering from an abandoned boatshed wall since 1963.

    If you wish to dispute this, please provide your analyses of:

    1. the barometric histories at the seawall for 1963 versus 2010
    2. the hydrodynamic characteristics at the seawall for 1963 versus 2010
    3. the El Niño conditions at the seawall for 1963 versus 2010
    4. the regional oceanic swell and surge conditions impinging the seawall for 1963 versus 2010
    5. the eustatic and tectonic trends for the continental plate under the seawall for 1963 versus 2010
    6. all sundry other possible confounders that you are able to account for, and that would demonstrate the thoroughness of your analysis.

    Fact:

    You are speaking from your arse, and you are stubbornly holding on to your wrong-headed thinking as would an ass.

  58. #59 Paul UK
    February 23, 2010

    Some educational material for Drongo to ponder:

    http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html

  59. #60 David Duff
    February 23, 2010

    Bernard J, no, I never “barrack” for anyone except me, me, me!

  60. #61 Bernard J.
    February 23, 2010

    Drongo.

    Have you arrived at a defensible argument for your attempt to fit a [linear regression trend to an oscillating phenomenon](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2287632)?

  61. #62 spangled drongo
    February 23, 2010

    Paul UK,

    Tsunamis are exactly “kicking water out of place by a giant foot”. You made the point. Some have been over 1000 feet high and they didn’t take 50 years to settle down.

    Compared with the leakage of glacial water, huge monsoonal dumps of literally metres of rainfall plus river flooding in areas like the Bay of Bengal are accompanied by falling SLs.

    When are you blokes gonna give up trying to pontificate and realise you just DON’T KNOW.

    Bernie,

    See above plus why don’t you stop telling other people how to suck eggs?

  62. #63 Chris O'Neill
    February 23, 2010

    S.o.d.:

    With only around 100 mm SL variation spread across the worlds oceans with all the different forces that they experience every minute of the day is a very good example of them “vigorously seeking equilibrium”.

    I find it amazing that you can’t comprehend that more than 100 mm SL variation (probably substantially more when averaged over shorter periods like a single king tide) is more than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years. Tell me, do you really think that more than 100 mm is less than 100 mm?

    “a problem is not a problem if it gives us plenty of warning.”
    Y’know, I thought we have had that salt problem for.. er..let me see, ever since Australia had an inland sea.

    Sure, that’s not a problem either. If you say so.

  63. #64 Bernard J.
    February 24, 2010

    Drongo resorts to schoolyard nya-nyas:

    See above plus why don’t you stop telling other people how to suck eggs?

    Drongo, if I’m telling you how to suck eggs, that implies that you understand all of the points that I and others have repeatedly put to you. And yet you do not address any of them.

    If you are so comprehensively accounting for all factors in your claim that this year’s sea level is 20 cm lower than it was in 1963, all you have to do is address my points at [#158](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2296204), and to [answer my questions left lingering on the other thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2274623). Oh, and you need to explain how the [professionally-collected tidal data for your part of the world](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2287098) and indeed [more generally around Australia](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2295222) are so utterly wrong and how your two “observations’ manage to trump them all.

    It’s completely bizarre that this nonsense of yours has continued for weeks now, with not one paragraph of science from you – just endless repetition about how your “observation” of a king tide along a seawall in 1963 was 20cm higher than one in 2010.

    If I said that my grandfather grew a cucumber in 1963 that was 50 cm long, but that his cumcumbers this year were no longer than 40 cm, would you conclude that all cucumbers in the world were now now longer than 40 cm, and indeed that my grandfather could no longer grow 50 cm cucumbers? Think about it, because that’s basically what you’re saying in the context of tides and of sea level.

    As you only seem to be able to function at a prepubescent level of discourse, I will rephrase my ongoing challenge to you to present the scientific case that supports your claim…

    Go on – I double dare ya; nah, I quadruple-times-infinity dare ya.

    And because the question seems to be escaping your attention even though I’ve repeated it several times, have you arrived at a [defensible argument for your attempt to fit a linear regression trend to an oscillating phenomenon](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2287632)?

  64. #65 Lotharsson
    February 24, 2010

    “a problem is not a problem if it gives us plenty of warning.” Y’know, I thought we have had that salt problem for.. er..let me see, ever since Australia had an inland sea.

    The other day and I noticed the pressure in my tyres was a touch low, and putting my ear to the valve I could hear a very slow leak.

    No problem, I said to myself. I have plenty of warning. It will take weeks to get to be a serious problem, and I’m really busy today.

    On the way to work I couldn’t avoid driving over some building debris. I would have been worried about the broken glass and nails deflating my tyres, but fortunately I remembered “No worries about deflation, as I have plenty of warning”.

    I haven’t quite figured out what that screeching noise is yet though, and the bumping is getting annoying and my steering seems a touch difficult. But I’m sure it’s nothing too serious.

  65. #66 spangled drongo
    February 24, 2010

    C.O.N.D.O.M.

    “I find it amazing that you can’t comprehend that more than 100 mm SL variation (probably substantially more when averaged over shorter periods like a single king tide) is more than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years.”

    And high and low tides occur at the same time too. Well, well, hey, who’d ‘a’ thought.

    I find it amazing you can’t comprehend that if sea levels, at a given point, over a period of 47 years, not only fail to rise but actually fall by 20 cms that neither I nor the sea is going to wet the bed any time soon. [even though you choose to]

  66. #67 spangled drongo
    February 24, 2010

    Lotharsson,

    If you’d put your spit on that valve instead dribbling here ……

  67. #68 Michael
    February 24, 2010

    drongo;

    I find it amazing you can’t comprehend that if sea levels, at a given point, over a period of 47 years, not only fail to rise but actually fall by 20 cms that neither I nor the sea is going to wet the bed any time soon

    I find it amazing that after all this time the drongo still doesn’t understand even the most basic features of tidal dynamics, hence his utterly ludicrous statement above.

  68. #69 spangled drongo
    February 24, 2010

    “I find it amazing that after all this time the drongo still doesn’t understand even the most basic features of tidal dynamics,”

    Michael, @ 37

    “Any local factors that might affect a median or low tide will have precisely the same effect on a spring tide.”

    Can’t say that about you, hey Michael.

  69. #70 Michael
    February 24, 2010

    Numerous people have tried to get some basic facts to penetrate your thick skull with no effect.

    We’ll try again, your comparison to a single spring tide of 47 years ago is meaningless unless you can account for all the factors; wind, barometric pressure,etc.

    Without doing this your comment that sea level has fallen 20cms in beyond stupid.

  70. #71 Michael
    February 24, 2010

    “is” not “in”

  71. #72 spangled drongo
    February 24, 2010

    Michael,

    You’re not only stupid, you don’t heed.

  72. #73 Michael
    February 24, 2010

    What, so you still don’t understand the effect of barometirc pressure on tidal merasurement?

    It would be OK if you just don’t get this, but you seem to refuse to get it.

    Militant idiocy on parade.

  73. #74 Bernard J.
    February 24, 2010

    [Drongo say](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2298328)s:

    I find it amazing you can’t comprehend that if sea levels, at a given point, over a period of 47 years, not only fail to rise but actually fall by 20 cms that neither I nor the sea is going to wet the bed any time soon.

    See, this is the thing drongo…

    You’ve compared two king tide heights, under completely different meteorological, hydrodynamic, and other assorted conditions dictated by confounding variables, and without a standardised protocol for measuring in the first place – and with no evidence that you’ve actually done what you said that you did – and then you confabulate your “observations” with true sea level measurement.

    Do you truly not understand that you are comparing apples with elephants?

    You may as well say that because yesterday was cooler than today, there is no approaching austral winter.

  74. #75 Paul UK
    February 24, 2010

    Drongo said:
    >Tsunamis are exactly “kicking water out of place by a giant foot”. You made the point. Some have been over 1000 feet high and they didn’t take 50 years to settle down.

    I said:
    >50 years or longer is roughly how long a huge mass of water would take to redistribute itself around the planet, if kicked out of place by a giant foot.

    On a global scale a Tsunami is not a huge mass of water being moved. It is a localised high energy event that propagates a wave. A wave doesn’t transfer a large mass of water. Your Bath tub example was not an adequate model for what you were discussing, because Tsunami’s have zilch to do with sea levels and your ‘model’ represented a far greater force confined to a small space. A more realistic model would be to drop a tiny pebble in the bath and watch the tiny waves propagate from the point it was dropped in.

    Animation of an event generating a Tsunami:
    http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/645fall2003_web.dir/elena_suleimani/generation_small.mov

    >When are you blokes gonna give up trying to pontificate and realise you just DON’T KNOW.

    When are you going to grow up and have an intelligent discussion without being rude.

    I suggest you also read up to find out why a wave might end up being ‘high’ when it reaches a shore line. It’s quite basic school boy stuff.

  75. #76 Paul UK
    February 24, 2010

    Tiny URL for the Tsunami animation I posted previously:

    http://tinyurl.com/yhf3863

  76. #77 Paul UK
    February 24, 2010

    Grrrr, try this for the animation:

    http://tinyurl.com/yd223r5

  77. #78 Dave
    February 24, 2010

    @Drongo

    > And high and low tides occur at the same time too. Well, well, hey, who’d ‘a’ thought.

    Can you elaborate on this aside – I’m not sure I caught your meaning?

  78. #79 jakerman
    February 24, 2010

    Drongo feeds on the abuse like the dark side, that’s why he provokes it.

    But he [doesn’t like it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2292999) when I [do this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2292999).

    I’m guess

  79. #80 spangled drongo
    February 24, 2010

    Janet,

    I love it when you do that. But seriously you lot, what is it about comparing one sea site 90-odd times with king tides over 47 years that you dont understand? And as I have already said there were times when SLs were higher due to abnormal situations but this last HAT was lower by 20cms.

    You’re at liberty to say “I don’t believe you” and I can understand that but don’t try to tell me something else happened that didn’t happen in my own back yard. And the other point I am trying to make is that while I am happy to admit that this site is not the ultimate indicator of SLs, [no single site ever could be] it is reporting a regular, periodic story and its message is worth noting.

  80. #81 Michael
    February 24, 2010

    Do you understand the influence of barometric pressure (amongst other things) or not?

  81. #82 jakerman
    February 24, 2010

    No seriously Drongo,

    Remind us how many data points you used to overturn the worlds research organisation measures of Sea Level Rise?

    It really is central to what you are claiming.

    And are you really concealing data in your private life’s diaries or did you just want to make an allusion to possible data that doesn’t really exist?

  82. #83 Chris O'Neill
    February 24, 2010

    S. O. D.:

    I find it amazing that you can’t comprehend that more than 100 mm SL variation (probably substantially more when averaged over shorter periods like a single king tide) is more than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years. Tell me, do you really think that more than 100 mm is less than 100 mm?

    And high and low tides occur at the same time too. Well, well, hey, who’d ‘a’ thought.

    OK, for someone as brain-dead as yourself, you can leave out the part in brackets because it obviously exceeds your attention span:

    I find it amazing that you can’t comprehend that more than 100 mm SL variation is more than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years. Tell me, do you really think that more than 100 mm is less than 100 mm? And this time, try to answer the question.

    I find it amazing you can’t comprehend that if sea levels, at a given point, over a period of 47 years, not only fail to rise but actually fall by 20 cms that neither I nor the sea is going to wet the bed any time soon.

    Record King tides in the past don’t stop records in the future and neither do they mean they’re going to happen again in less than 47 years, even assuming the record is accurate which is very questionable in this case. Individual King tide height is affected by Barometric setup and Wind setup even when Wave setup and Wave runup are avoided. Together, Barometric setup and Wind setup can add 0.6 m to a King tide record and there’s nothing to say that that much boost to the tide level will happen again within a small number of years. As well as atmospheric influences, there are more than 100 astronomical constituents that affect the timing and height of tides. The King tides have a period of six months but the combination of the other constituents produces a pseudo-random sequence with a practically infinite period. Thus the heights of King tides vary effectively randomly which means there is no limit to how long it can be between records. For the benefit of S.O.D., that means more than 47 years.

  83. #84 Bernard J.
    February 24, 2010

    Drongo.

    Seriously dude, your thinking on sea level is completely FUBARed.

    It seems that you are ignoring my comment at #164 about ignoring my comments and questions, so [I will draw it to your attention again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2298304).

    And although Chris O’Neill has pipped me to the post on the matter of the magnitudes of particular confounders of tide height, I will nevertheless add [another link for your consideration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#Overview_of_sea-level_change), and in forlorn hope, your illumination.

    And a new challenge for you ([beyond the request that you answer my previous questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2274623) and that you [show why your argument on fitting a linear regression trend to an oscillating phenomenon is defensible](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2287632)) – can you provide your original claim in a journal abstract form, explaining how you have measured sea level and how it refutes the conventionally accepted science?

    I also have a challenge for drongo’s mates from the Old Swamp, as I know that both cohentite and Tim Curtin, amongst others, are reading these threads. If you believe that drongo has any case, come out and support him. Help him to coherently state his case, and demonstrate why you lot have a hotline to the truth where the planets best oceanographers are missing the plot.

    Come on boys, be brave! Curtin, perhaps you might like to expand upon your lunar year notion…

    And perhaps the both of you, and whoever else is lurking in the shadows, might explain how it is that now the world’s oceanographers, on top of the world’s climatologists, physicists, and biologists, are conspiring to perpetrate their own “oh, my mythical deity, it’s increasing!” fraud.

    Are there any disciplines of science that you lot do believe are not universally peopled by conspirators??

  84. #85 spangled drongo
    February 24, 2010

    What is it about self appointed experts who don’t credit people with any brains who have spent much of their lives on and by the sea, that they feel the need to pontificate and instruct?

    Is it the old “they that can, do and they that can’t, instruct,” problem? [I know all about sucking eggs but I’m sure you don’t]

    Those three meteorological processes that affect coastal water levels, storm, meteorological ocillation and climate change have all been discussed here before and wave setup and wave runup don’t apply in an estuarine “stilling pond” where it’s so flat you can mark the stationary high water level with a pen against the concrete.

    Storms almost always increase SLs, MOs likewise because we are talking about king tides and the only variable is barometric pressure and having both a torricelli and aneroid and used them daily most of my life [torricelli on land, aneroid at sea] I am aware of that influence.

    That leaves the climate change card so if SLs are not going up what’s it saying?

  85. #86 jakerman
    February 24, 2010

    Remember me Drongo?

    I’m still waiting:

    Remind us how many data points you used to overturn the worlds research organisation measures of Sea Level Rise?

    It really is central to what you are claiming.

    And are you really concealing data in your private life’s diaries or did you just want to make an allusion to possible data that doesn’t really exist?

  86. #87 spangled drongo
    February 24, 2010

    But for those of you who prefer to wet the bed….

    http://www.musicanet.org/robokopp/shanty/wetsheet.htm

  87. #88 jakerman
    February 24, 2010

    Background for casual readers [regarding Drongo’s aversion](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2290436) to the fundament question which I keep chasing him with:

    >*[Drongo] knows enough that he needs to keep constructing these false allusions and strawmen to divert focus from the terminal weakness of his argument.*

  88. #89 Michael
    February 24, 2010

    So if drongo knows all the variables, why doesn’t he just tell us what the pressure, etc was for the tides in question?

    There’s been a lot of yammering from the drongo and precious little information.

  89. #90 spangled drongo
    February 24, 2010

    Michael,

    Just for the sake of some dolt who keeps “yammering” but doesn’t read or absorb information, I’ll repeat what I have previosly said, that barometric pressure on that day was below normal, there was cyclone activity in the Coral Sea and a substantial on-shore gradient all of which if normalised would probably have reduced the SL by another 5 cms.

    janet,

    Remind me first how thick you are and how many times you will need to be reminded in the future.

  90. #91 Michael
    February 24, 2010

    “below normal”!

    What on earth is “below normal” MLSP you drongo?

    But please, keep ignoring the detailed historical tide information that Bernard has supplied you with.

  91. #92 jakerman
    February 24, 2010

    Drongo,

    I must be quite thick, becasue I can’t find where you provide an adequate answer my question:

    >Remind us how many data points you used to overturn the worlds research organisation measures of Sea Level Rise?

    It really is central to what you are claiming.

    >And are you really concealing data in your private life’s diaries or did you just want to make an allusion to possible data that doesn’t really exist?

  92. #93 spangled drongo
    February 24, 2010

    Michael,

    You arrogant ignoramus! [as your friend C.O.N.D.O.M. would say] Normal is 1013 millibars. 29.9 inches or 759 mms of mercury.

    Here’s one for the “Doltoids war on sceptics”.

    This must be where you get your SLR science from at the expense of your kids’ sanity:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/09/tv_climate_ad_drowning_dog/

  93. #94 spangled drongo
    February 24, 2010
  94. #95 just curious
    February 24, 2010

    barometric pressure on that day was below normal

    Day (not days): um, didn’t you have two data points?

  95. #96 Anonymous
    February 24, 2010

    spangled drongo, ask el gordo how to fix your linking problem. Alternatively, read the blog instructions.

  96. #97 spangled drongo
    February 24, 2010

    Even the site is selectively biased. Try again.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/09/tv_climate_ad_drowning_dog/

    just curious, 90+ actually.

  97. #98 jakerman
    February 24, 2010

    Yesterday I gave my big hat tip for insightful extra dimention in [Stu J’s comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/skeptical_science_iphone_app.php#comment-2298608). For the double barreled depth of meaning sqeeze into one sentance?

    ‘Just curious’ gets my vote for multi-layered accute comment for today.

  98. #99 Michael
    February 25, 2010

    drongo you drongo.

    You’re meant to be providing us with a comparison.

    “below normal” tells us absolutely nothing, as many commenters have already noted.

    And if you want to fix your links, enclose them in these; “< ", ">“.

  99. #100 spangled drongo
    February 25, 2010

    “Below normal” tells you [well, any normal person] that, particularly included with onshore gradient, normalised, SLs would be even lower.

    As I have said previously I haven’t compared this recent data to old king tide data when there were often cyclones and rain depressions closely associated with them because those data were abnormally high [up to 1.5 m higher]. Only with data that occurred during fine summer and winter weather when the barometer was near normal [mild high] and no storms. It is also quite usual that with a large high over SE Australia causing theoretically lower SLs there can be strong on-shore winds causing higher coastal SLs as evidenced by a southerly set of up to four knots [SLs vigorously seeking equilibrium]. Before the days of GPS the only way to detect these ocean currents was by thermometer.

Current ye@r *