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 Chris O'Neill
    February 25, 2010

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

    S.O.D., You still haven’t answered my question:

    Do you really think that more than 100 mm SL variation is less than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years.

    Storms almost always increase SLs, MOs likewise because we are talking about king tides and the only variable is barometric pressure

    No, you’ve forgotten wind. And lots of other variables as well.

    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

    Reduced? How do below normal pressure and wind set-up reduce SL? And we just have to believe your figure do we? Thanks but no thanks.

  2. #2 spangled drongo
    February 25, 2010
  3. #3 spangled drongo
    February 25, 2010

    “Reduced? How do below normal pressure and wind set-up reduce SL?”

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

    I’m trying to still the waters but you insist on making heavy weather of it.

    No, they make it higher but when you “normalise” those factors, ie bring them back to normal pressure, no onshore wind etc [get it?] then that already low reading would be even lower.

    And BTW, storms do include wind.

    Michael, looka that! It works!

  4. #4 spangled drongo
    February 25, 2010

    Nah, it doesn’t. I knew it was biased.

  5. #6 Chris O'Neill
    February 25, 2010
  6. #7 Andrew
    February 25, 2010

    On balance do people agree Spangled D ?

    You might be wrong. I don’t think anyone is out to trick you.

  7. #8 spangled drongo
    February 25, 2010

    “You still haven’t explained why we should believe you”

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

    Reread 180. And while you’re at it check out the Roman fish ponds, invasion site etc and think upon SLs for the last 2,000 years and despair.

  8. #9 spangled drongo
    February 25, 2010

    Andrew,

    Do you mean consensually speaking?

  9. #10 Michael
    February 25, 2010

    This thread may have to be renamed – drongo’s war on reason.

  10. #11 Murfomurf
    February 25, 2010

    Wasn’t this about powerful media peddling folklore to the general public? I’d rather you confined the remainder of the climate change war to the towers of academe, please- ordinary humans are just bl**dy sick of it all!- Particularly since we’re all told we can’t do anything about it and Mr Rudd doesn’t want to do it on our behalf!

  11. #12 spangled drongo
    February 25, 2010

    Murfomurf,

    Things are never that bad that you’d want to pay a dumb tax to Rudd to build more of those ivory “towers of academe”. Particularly not the way they have been heading.

    Check this out and you’ll be on a much better train and note those recent warmER periods:

    < http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/>

  12. #13 Bud
    February 25, 2010

    I know drongo, it’s amazing how we can just ignore 65 million years of human history like that.

  13. #14 spangled drongo
    February 25, 2010

    it’s amazing how we can just ignore 65 million years of human history like that.

    Especially when ya can’t wring a hockey stick out of any part of it.

    Particularly those last beautiful 3,500!

  14. #15 Michael
    February 25, 2010

    OK, if civilisation could exist in thouse conditions 65 mya, what are we worrying about!

  15. #16 Hasis
    February 25, 2010

    Is Jo Nova’s new best friend David Lappi one in the same as this David Lappi?

    http://home.gci.net/~lapres/

    LAPP Resources is promoting Alaska as a favorable exploration and production destination for independent petroleum companies. LRI is one of the three founding members of the “Royalty Owners and Independents for Alaska, Inc. “(ROI for Alaska), a group formed by local independents to support independent development of Alaska’s hydrocarbon resources.

    Just asking?

  16. #17 Chris O'Neill
    February 25, 2010

    S.O.D.:

    Reread 180.

    what is it about comparing one sea site 90-odd times with king tides over 47 years that you dont understand?

    What is it about variations in tide heights that you don’t 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.

    And why, pray tell, were those abnormal situations not capable of exceeding the rise in average sea level since then?

    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

    You can’t even get that right. Sea level is NOT periodic. It has a periodic component but also an aperiodic component. The aperiodicity is caused by the very large number of influences on sea level.

    And you still haven’t answered my question:

    Do you really think that more than 100 mm SL variation is less than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years?

  17. #18 zoot
    February 25, 2010

    I have installed Greasemonkey and the killfile script. And now all I see of the drongo is:

    Comment by spangled drongo blocked. [unkill]​[show comment]

    Sweet, sweet relief. I heartily recommend it to anyone with a brain

  18. #19 P. Lewis
    February 25, 2010

    Welcome to the club zoot.

    You just have to resist the temptation to take a peek with [show comment] — can be hard to do at times.

    And it’s best you avert your eyes from the screen before it is rewritten too, as if a bod is in your [kill] file and they are in the last 2 or 3 to post in a thread, then the delay is often just sufficient to catch a peek at the latest rubbish they are espousing before the [kill] takes effect.

  19. #20 Bernard J.
    February 25, 2010

    I will be away for the next four days, ironically to take a break with my extended family in a shack 2 metres above the high tide line, and in an area where there is no wireless broadband coverage, so I will have to leave it to Chris O’Neill, Michael, jackerman and others to keep drongo from wriggling away from his baseless claim.

    A couple of reiterations for said numpty though… first up dude, why will you not address my question about how your promotion of [the fit of a linear regression trend to an oscillating phenomenon](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2287632) is defensible?

    And why will you not show – using basic science – how all of [the facts underscoring the questions that I have repeatedly put to you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2298304) are inferior to your several observations of waves along a seawall in an unspecified meteorological milieu, taken at unspecified times with respect to the astronomical high tide, and with unspecified conditions of current, wind, hydrodynamic progression and sundry other parameters?

    Similarly, why do you not believe [the raw data that contradicts your unstandardised “observations”](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2289239)?

    You flap your hands around a lot and come up with unsupported “[if this, and this, and this…](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2301458)” scenarios to cover your lack of hard data, but you do not actually refer to any data, nor to any analysis thereof.

    You admit that you don’t know what the meteorological, hydrodynamic, oceanographic or other sundry parameters were back in 1963. [Chris O’Neill specifically asks you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2301925) why the many possible combinations of such parameters were not capable of producing a higher tide in 1963 compared with January this year – how do you respond, and how can you possibly respond with any degree of scientific confidence at all if you do not have meticulously recorded and detailed data on all of the relevant parameters?!

    In your little ‘[lesson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2301495)’ about “normalisation”, a lesson that the rest of us have been trying to drive into your granite skull for weeks, how do you know that the “normalisation” of the 1963 level that you “observed” gives a result that is higher than for an adjusted result this January?

    Oo, and note: the quality of your capacity for “observation” is not assured – how do we know that you weren’t standing next to an ‘air conditioner’ or something similar…

    And another note, barometric pressure is not the only variable that affects water level in a “[stilling pond](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2300868)”. Upstream and seaward hydrodynamics both have an effect (as do the other parameters that both I and Chris O’Neill have repeated [directed you to](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#Overview_of_sea-level_change)), and as you are so loud to proclaim, water “vigorously finds [sic] its own level”. Changes in hydrodynamics are thus rapidly transmitted to places such as your “stilling pond”, and are therefore mandatory input for adjusting – or “normalising”, as you like to say – ambient sea level in a dynamic environment.

    Oo, oo – and another note: [your claim that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2301458):

    Before the days of GPS the only way to detect these ocean currents was by thermometer.

    is [so wrong that it’s not even wrong](http://hydro-international.com/issues/articles/id603-Ocean_Current_Measurements_a_Review.html). And I should know – I myself have used rotor-based current meters, and there was no mercury involved…

    I could go on, as I have repeatedly done already, but it’s becoming patently apparent that you are possessed of your own little Bermuda Triangle between your ears, where scientific facts sail never to be seen again – tides, gyres, vortices and sundry other fluid phenomena all unnecessary for their disappearance, as your Triangle is obviously a manifestation of a particularly massive Dunning-Kruger black hole.

    You disagree? Then use some scientific process – it’s really not that hard. And if you can’t manage that by yourself, invite your mates to help you, although as I have already observed they’ve been uncharacterisitically quiet about your challenge to scientific integrity.

    I wonder why?

  20. #21 spangled drongo
    February 25, 2010

    Bernard,

    Have a good holiday and don’t forget to keep a weather eye cocked on that SL. Go easy on the egg-sucking lessons but before you leave Chris in charge give him some of your instructions on which way is up and which way is down.

    WRT ocean currents: so you dropped anchor in 15,000 feet of water in the middle of an ocean race so you could use a rotor based current meter to check the set? Very slow.

    Bernard, try and stay aware or you tend to believe anything. Even the aware guys can come to grief if they rely too much on scientific instruments and don’t keep a good look out.

    < http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/25/2830316.htm?section=justin>

  21. #22 Chris O'Neill
    February 25, 2010

    S.O.D., you still haven’t answered my question:

    Do you really think that more than 100 mm SL variation is less than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years?

    Also, try to learn what periodic means.

  22. #23 spangled drongo
    February 25, 2010

    Chris-Which-Way-Is-Up-O’Neill,

    A king tide is not periodic?

    Something that happens regularly mid-summer and mid-winter, twice a year, every year is not periodic??

    Is that also filed under “which way is up”.

  23. #24 Chris W
    February 25, 2010

    I’m still sniggering at Bernard J’s characterisation of spangled dickhead’s skull. Bermuda Triangle indeed.

  24. #25 Bernard J.
    February 25, 2010

    I’m leaving now, but drongo…

    Short’s and Gordon’s navigation shortcomings do not distract from the fact that you are oblivious to the many other methods for measuring ocean currents that do not involve thermometers. You are simply trying to lay another red herring in order to divert attention from your mounting catalogue of mistakes – ‘though I doubt that any reading this thread need to have this pointed out.

    It’s interesting though to see how many times [you avoid answering the difficult (for you) questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2302135).

    A few little words of illumination for you – you might believe that you are somehow scoring points on this matter of your absurd claim, but you are fooling no-one except yourself: not even your Bog-mates are coming out to defend you, and we know that they’re reading this thread.

    As I always do, I will note that to prove me wrong you need only address my questions, and in doing so to find the data and to conduct the analyses that refute the real data and my, and other people’s, points of fact.

    Your persistent flapping of hands about your “observations” does not constitute a reasoned scienctific argument, no matter how much you imagine that it does…

    Oh, and king tides are not ‘periodic’ in the manner in which you seem to believe that they are; and their realised amplitudes certainly are not, for all the reasons that you persist in ignoring – except when you believe that their mention might salvage your own hide.

    And speaking of ‘periodicity’, how’s the [homework](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2287632) coming along? Out of perverse curiosity, do you know how many times I’ve asked you about this without any decent response from you?

  25. #26 spangled drongo
    February 25, 2010

    Bye Bye Bernie, Mind the step.

    I should have said for one as obtuse as you [but sometimes I give you the BotD] that because it is virtually impossible for the average joe to anchor his boat in the deep ocean, that currents were measured by thermometer prior to GPS but you Doltoids so enjoy making a meal out of every bit of esoteric crap that comes your way, I should have been more circumspect.

    And you really believe that tides are not periodic? King or daily? High or low? What could be more fundamentally periodic than tides? Sounds like even more of the same EC.

    Anyway this is C.O.N.D.O.M.’s baby. He’s suppose to be doing your job not v/v. You can knock-off now. SEAULATER.

  26. #27 John
    February 26, 2010

    “I should have said for one as obtuse as you [but sometimes I give you the BotD] that because it is virtually impossible for the average joe to anchor his boat in the deep ocean, that currents were measured by thermometer prior to GPS but you Doltoids so enjoy making a meal out of every bit of esoteric crap that comes your way, I should have been more circumspect.”

    Curse those piddling facts.

  27. #28 spangled drongo
    February 26, 2010

    “Curse those piddling facts.”

    John, I assume you mean the fact that as virtually no one can anchor in mid ocean those current measuring devices of Bernie’s were worthless and his point invalid. Just another case of putting your faith in “scientific” instruments that don’t deliver.

    Any idea of the total error budget in satellite SL measurements?

  28. #29 Neil White
    February 26, 2010

    Spangled Drongo (#226) said:

    “…that because it is virtually impossible for the average joe to anchor his boat in the deep ocean, that currents were measured by thermometer prior to GPS…”

    You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Oceanographers have been measuring ocean currents for decades using current meters anchored to the bottom of the ocean – often in the deeper parts of the ocean. This is a well-established technology which pre-dates, and has nothing to do with, GPS.

    Quoting you again: “…but you … so enjoy making a meal out of every bit of esoteric crap that comes your way…”.

    Nice self portrait. I couldn’t have put it better myself. Where do you get the rubbish you spout here?

    Neil White

  29. #30 Dappledwater
    February 26, 2010

    “Nice self portrait. I couldn’t have put it better myself. (Strangled Drongo)Where do you get the rubbish you spout here?” – Neil White

    A region of his body normally covered by underpants, except when he has them on his head.

  30. #31 spangled drongo
    February 26, 2010

    Neil White and Dappledwater,

    As average boat owners you anchor regularly in mid ocean? You may have noticed I said “virtually” no one can but if you think that average people can anchor in depths in excess of 10,000 metres you’re crazier than Bernie.

    To successfully anchor you need 3-1 scope and 30 kilometers of massive stud-link chain would require a separate ship just to carry it.

    I know it’s theoretically possible but logistically not probable so have you any evidence that anyone has successfully anchored in the deep oceans?

  31. #32 Lotharsson
    February 26, 2010

    Spangled Drongo, who said they anchored their “average boat” in deep ocean?

    Oh, wait – it was only you, jumping to conclusions.

    (And for bonus laughs, you started talking about 15000 feet deep and then upped the ante to 10000m. ;-)

    This thread has been quite illuminating.

  32. #33 Hasis
    February 26, 2010

    By my reckoning 15,000ft converts to 4,572m. So using SD’s (pre-goalpost shift) figure I would suggest that this abstract alone provides useful insight:

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982dcls.conf..159G

    Current meters moored at 1200 m from a seabed 4600 m deep in the Indian Ocean were recovered using the ARGOS system after failure of the explosive anchor-release bolts prevented recovery using acoustic methods.

    Admittedly, I don’t think anyone had access to this sort of technology in Victorian times.

  33. #34 spangled drongo
    February 26, 2010

    Lotharrson,

    Pay attention and read Neil White’s post. You also don’t know much about ocean depths. White’s post stated “deeper parts of the ocean” and while it is 15,000 feet locally, it is 35,000 feet to the north. You need all the illumination you can get.

    And Hasis,

    Those instruments anchored 3,400 metres underwater would be very handy for updating necessary info onboard.[not]

  34. #35 Lotharsson
    February 26, 2010

    Pay attention and read Neil White’s post. You also don’t know much about ocean depths. White’s post stated “deeper parts of the ocean” and while it is 15,000 feet locally, it is 35,000 feet to the north. You need all the illumination you can get.

    You’re jumping to conclusions again. I know how deep it gets. I was pointing out you couldn’t seem to make your mind up about it.

    I also note you appeared to bring the “anchoring your boat” meme into the discussion on the presumption that was what others were suggesting, without any obvious evidence to support that presumption. Maybe you need to pay better attention to others’ posts?

  35. #36 spangled drongo
    February 26, 2010

    “I also note you appeared to bring the “anchoring your boat” meme into the discussion on the presumption that was what others were suggesting, without any obvious evidence to support that presumption.”

    Lotharsson,

    Don’t you understand that Bernard’s and other’s current measuring devices other than GPS only work if they are held stationary and that requires anchoring? Possibly the others didn’t understand this as well but that is the only way they can work.

  36. #37 Michael
    February 26, 2010

    Lotharsson, don’t bother trying to hold drongo down on a specific point – he’s a gish galloper from way back.

    The whole issue of ‘anchoring’ was raised by drongo as a distraction from his stupid claim that the only way to measure some ocean currents before GPS was via thermometers.

    Formula: drongo says something dopey, then tries to turn a quibble into a mountain to take the focus off his idiocy.

  37. #38 Lotharsson
    February 26, 2010

    Don’t you understand that Bernard’s and other’s current measuring devices other than GPS only work if they are held stationary and that requires anchoring?

    I understand that *you* think that, but as I’m naturally skeptical ;-) (That, and I can imagine there are plausible ways to do it without GPS and without anchoring).

    And I note you still don’t understand the distinction between anchoring an entire boat (which you implied was necessary – see my skepticism above) and anchoring a smallish monitoring device. But never mind, it’s not that important.

  38. #39 Chris O'Neill
    February 26, 2010

    Stupid old drongo:

    A king tide is not periodic?

    Something that happens regularly mid-summer and mid-winter, twice a year, every year is not periodic??

    I even cited the reference and he still didn’t want to learn. No, ya drongo, a periodic function is not just something that happens regularly mid-summer and mid-winter, twice a year, every year. A function f is periodic if f(t+P)=f(t) for all values of t with a non-zero constant P called the period. Sea level does not satisfy this criterion. For example, sea level does not repeat at yearly intervals simply because the one-year average sea level is rarely the same in successive years.

    And you still haven’t answered my question:

    Do you really think that more than 100 mm SL variation is less than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years? Just answer the question w.r.t. magnitudes in case you’re trying to make some pedantic misinterpretation.

  39. #40 AH
    February 26, 2010

    The Australian subtly misrepresents again [PM changes direction on climate](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/pm-changes-direction-on-climate/story-e6frg6n6-1225834964124)

    From the headline you’d think there was a policy shift. The article is about changes to ministerial responsibility.

  40. #41 spangled drongo
    February 26, 2010

    Lotharsson,

    To get you on wave length, [pardon the pun] we were discussing SLR and the southerly set that runs southward at up to 4 knots off our east coast is due to SL out of equilibrium [by anything up to 60cms] from winds working in an anticlockwise direction around Australia and these SLs vigorously seek equilibrium by reversing their direction against the prevailing wind. This southerly set is happening most of the time and when travelling off shore under sail it can double your speed if you play it to your advantage. To do this you need the wherewithall on board your boat to know when you are in this set and how fast it is going. Prior to the era of the GPS the only way to do this [in spite of Bernard’s opinion otherwise] was to monitor the temp of the water and the higher the change [the set was always warmer if it was coming from the north] the faster it was running. Naturally it could also be measured by anchoring and measuring the set in a dozen different ways but that was impractical to the point of impossible depending on ocean depth and how much of a hurry you were in. Also you had to have constant updates on this current. To answer your point about anchoring an entire boat, you can now understand that it is necessary to be in constant touch with your source of information and this source needs to be moving with you.

    Chrissy-Which-way,

    I said “periodic” but you altered it to your own agenda of “periodic function”. You go and play with your PF to your heart’s content but just remember you’re as confused as ever.

  41. #42 Michael
    February 26, 2010

    More gish gallop from drongo.

    Drongo, if you’ve elected to join the circus, you can’t blame others for concluding you’re a clown.

  42. #43 spangled drongo
    February 26, 2010

    Michael,

    For an ignoramus, 99% of relevant detail is always gish gallop.

  43. #44 Chris O'Neill
    February 26, 2010

    S.O.D.:

    I said “periodic” but you altered it to your own agenda of “periodic function”.

    I thought we we talking about sea level, you know, a variable that is not a periodic function. Heaven knows what you’re talking about because it’s certainly not sea level.

    You go and play with your PF to your heart’s content but just remember you’re as confused as ever.

    Sure. If you say so. No-one thinks you’re confused.

    And you still haven’t answered my question:

    Do you really think that more than 100 mm SL variation is less than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years? Just answer the question w.r.t. magnitudes in case you’re trying to make some pedantic misinterpretation.

  44. #45 Michael
    February 26, 2010

    Shorter drongo;
    I was talking a load of rubbish earlier about measuring currents, I’d better change the subject.

  45. #46 spangled drongo
    February 26, 2010

    “I thought we we talking about sea level,”

    Chrissy-Which-Way Red Herring Man,

    I’ll do it again just for you.

    “180
    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.”

    “Periodic” does not apply to SLs, it applies to the “90 odd times with king tides over 47 years”

    Re your other stupid, repetitious question, it has been answered twenty different ways if you paid attention.

  46. #47 Chris O'Neill
    February 26, 2010

    S.O.D.:

    “Periodic” does not apply to SLs, it applies to the “90 odd times with king tides over 47 years”

    Silly me, I thought we were talking about sea level, not whether ONE component of it was periodic.

    it has been answered twenty different ways if you paid attention.

    Yeah, twenty different ways all right. Pity they don’t actually answer the question. The point is that the more than 100 mm sea level variation, just in annual average variation alone, is more than the rise in global average sea level in 47 years. So the highest tide level 47 years ago at one place could EASILY be higher than anything more recent and does not in any way contradict the fact that global average sea level has risen about 100 mm in the last 50 years. Sea level variations (apart from tides) over periods shorter than a year are considerably more than annual average variation so those variations could easily add more than another 100 mm to a tide 47 years ago. So when someone comes along and says:

    after 47 years nothing is happening in MBY

    it means absolutely nothing about whether global average sea level is rising or will continue to rise or that it won’t overwhelm any past record in the next 100 years (300 mm will overwhelm any of your records).

  47. #48 spangled drongo
    February 26, 2010

    “Silly me, I thought we were talking about sea level,

    Ya finally got that right! BTW, who brought up that red herring argument claiming that I said that “periodic” was applicable to SLs?

    “So the highest tide level 47 years ago at one place could EASILY be higher than anything more recent”

    Yes that’s posible but when it’s not just 47 years ago but 40 ya, 35 ya, 30 ya etc in normal weather years similar to this last one [in fact there have only been two in ’67 and ’74 that have exceeded the benchmark and those were caused by easily identified extremes] that makes you conclude that the claimed threat of SLR is highly debateable.

  48. #49 Chris O'Neill
    February 27, 2010

    S.O.D.:

    Yes that’s posible but when it’s not just 47 years ago but 40 ya, 35 ya, 30 ya etc in normal weather years similar to this last one [in fact there have only been two in ’67 and ’74 that have exceeded the benchmark and those were caused by easily identified extremes].

    You still don’t get it. 47 ya, 35ya, etc. doesn’t make any difference. The average sea level rise over those periods is lower than the variation of sea level averaged over a year.

    that makes you conclude that the claimed threat of SLR is highly debateable.

    I’m not the one trying to conclude anything from your observations. You are. Come back when you understand the difference. Until then, get lost.

  49. #50 Bernard J.
    February 28, 2010

    Frustratingly for me I had to cut my break short and come home in order to help with last-minute work on the PhD thesis I’ve been proofing for the last few weeks. More frustratingly, but not surprising, is that I have returned to find that drongo is as non-comprehending about the matter of his king tide nonsense as when I left. It seems that he is determined to prove that the old adage about talking to brick walls applies to the sea wall variant…

    Drongo’s blathering about currents has well and truly distracted from the initial discussion, which was that the claim that his “observations” at a (land-based) sea wall indicate a drop of sea level of 20 cm from 1963 to 2010.

    It is in this context that I drew to his attention that currents are an important factor, and it is in this context that he made his [completely unqualified statement](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2301458) about only being able to measure currents with thermometers prior to the advent of GPS. In fact, in this post he referred to “on-shore winds causing higher coastal SLs” [emphases mine] – hardly a context that has to do with the deep ocean trenches implicit in his mention of [15 000 feet](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2303619 )/[10 000 m](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2304410) depths.

    Seriously… what on earth, or below its waves, do depths such as this have to do with a discussion of the hydrodynamics of the vicinity of this much-vaunted sea wall with which drongo is so enamoured?!

    Drongo.

    The 18.6 year nodal (astronomical) cycle affects sea level. Barometric pressure affects sea level. Regional meteorological events affect sea level. Local hydrodynamics and oceanography (including, but not restricted to, coastal currents) affect sea level. Eustatic and tectonic shifts affect relative sea level.

    What about these factors is it that you are so resistant to accepting?

    What is it about the simple raw data, for the very region about which you make your claims, that you find so unpalatable? After all, even before the requisite adjustments to account for the impinging parameters, they show sea level increase – and yes, even in a form where the professional advice is to not make inferences from such data about changes in sea level! And if you are suddenly going to claim that we need to heed this admonition, do you then accept the official, adjusted (or to use your own word – “normalised”) trends, which also indicate sea level increase?

    Huh?

    Now, another in a growing line of corrections…

    [You said at #226](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2304234):

    And you really believe that tides are not periodic?

    which is yet again a nasty example of you putting words into my mouth and thus attempting to erect a strawman. I said, [at #225](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2304130), that:

    king tides are not ‘periodic’ in the manner in which you seem to believe that they are; and their realised amplitudes certainly are not, for all the reasons that you persist in ignoring – except when you believe that their mention might salvage your own hide.

    [My latter emboldened emphasis]

    Read what I said, drongo – it means a completely different thing to what you attributed to me.

    It’s a grubby thing to do, buster, and it serves your cause no good at all to so do.

    And here’s a precious one indeed:

    Any idea of the total error budget in satellite SL measurements?

    Drongo… do you have any idea of the total “error budget” in non-standardised, non-corrected, non-documented, irregular, infrequent sea wall SL measurements?

    Hmmm?

    Yes that’s posible but when it’s not just 47 years ago but 40 ya, 35 ya, 30 ya etc in normal weather years similar to this last one [in fact there have only been two in ’67 and ’74 that have exceeded the benchmark and those were caused by easily identified extremes] that makes you conclude that the claimed threat of SLR is highly debateable.

    Please explain to the audience how it is that the occurrence of infrequent, extreme events, whose inherent noise is vastly greater than the signal that you dispute, in any way invalidates the existence of said signal? Note: this recalls question 6 of [my post #176 on the Andrew Bolt in one graph thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2274623), which you did not answer.

    And speaking of not answering questions, I (and I am sure many others here) are waiting for you to explain why you believe it is valid to [fit a linear regression trend line to an oscillating data set](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2287632).

    I don’t have much time to spare now as I need to return to proofing, but I will end with a note that some of the shacks adjacent to the one where I stayed over the weekend were less than 50 cm above last week’s high tide mark, and about a metre back from the line. Speaking to the owners of some of these shacks, several of whom are professional fishermen who have spent decades fishing the surrounding waters, reveals some dismissive disdain for your method of determining sea level indeed.

    This is hardly the place for me to recount a travelog of my long weekend, but suffice to say that there are folk whose livelihood and infrastructure are intimately attached to the sea, and who laugh at your method for assuring them that all is well with the level of the oceans. Deltoid is hardly a knitting circle of Baptist grandmothers, but some of the words used to describe your “observations” are too colourful even for the hardened folk here.

    So, are you ever going to formally state and defend with relevant fact the data, analyses and science with which you are making your claim?

  50. #51 Bernard J.
    March 2, 2010

    What’s the problem drongo? [Cat got your tongue](http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/classify/animalia/uniramia/pterygota/cricket.wav)?

    We’re still waiting for you to [answer the questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2302135).

    And I am really, really looking forward to you explaining why you believe it is valid to [fit a linear regression trend line to an oscillating data set](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2287632).

  51. #52 spangled drongo
    March 5, 2010

    “Until then, get lost.”

    Poor, sad ol’ Chrissy-Which-Way,

    When you don’t know which way is up I think I know who is lost. And that happened quite some time back.

  52. #53 Bernard J.
    March 5, 2010

    Still having trouble answering [the questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2314950), eh drongo?

  53. #54 Bernard J.
    March 5, 2010

    Over [at the ‘Institute of Irony’ thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/institute_of_irony.php#comment-2326028) drongo said:

    Having lost that core argument you rush about setting me “homework” to restore your ego. I do hope your thesis is a bit more logic based.

    Several corrections are required, drongo.

    First, I have never at any time “lost that core argument”. Indeed, you have never actually addressed in any substantive way, any of the points of my “argument”.

    You can [follow the trail of links](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2314950) in order to gather together these points or, if you’re constitutionally incapable of doing so, you can make a start by explaining why you not only present no data of your own, but that you also do not refer to the 1963 versus 2010 data for:

    1. ambient barometric pressure
    2. regional meteorological conditions
    3. hydrodynamic/bathymetric milieux
    4. ocean current condition along the coast
    5. isostatic/tectonic activity
    6. sundry other factors affecting sea level that you can read about for yourself.

    Seriously, how can you claim to refute the work of thousands of scientists and professional organisations on the basis of several anecdotal “observations” made with no standardised protocol, and in ignorance of several fields of science?

    Second, your homework has nothing to do with my ego, and everything to do with the scientific method. Get over yourself.

    Third, my thesis is entirely “logic-based”: if you disagree, you have but to explain why.

    I am somewhat wary of accusing others of mendacity after having [made an embarrassing misreading of Joseph’s words on the ‘Leakgate/The Oz War on Science’ thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/leakegate_the_australians_war.php#comment-2317246), but I have no compunction in suggesting that such might be the motivation for your behaviour here. It’s either that, or it’s sheer incompetence in, and/or ignorance of, high school level science.

    There is a third alternative, and that is that your ideological opposition to the very concept of a rising sea level has ingrained in your mind a breath-taking degree of denial of the type of science that is clear to any impartial observer.

    You will no doubt claim that the fourth alternative is that you are correct. If this were actually the case you should be able to vindicate yourself by providing straightforward rebuttals, based on clear evidence and data, to each of my many points.

    And yet, after a month, you do not do this – because you cannot do this. You are in truth a lame-arsed, pig-ignorant ideologue who misrepresents scientific fact, and you cannot engage in a proper evidence-based discussion because the moment you do so your little sandcastle of delusion about sea levels will be swept away by a wave of scientific fact.

    Oh, and just for the record, I and all of the Deltoid readers are fully cognisant of the glaring fact that you persist in avoiding my question about why [you believe it is valid to fit a linear regression trend line to an oscillating data set](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2287632).

    As I sit hear typing this I am listening to the [Science Show](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/default.htm) on the ABC, which is presently broadcasting a media interview of a number of scientists about the UEA/CRU matter. As I listen it is apparent that there are many in “the public” who think that if they disbelieve the evidence of science, ostrich-like, then it is no longer true. The centuries-long effort to deny evolution, for ideological reasons, is the classic example of this, and anthropogenic global warming is but the most recent incarnation of the desire for many to keep their heads in the sand.

    Good luck with that. Hiding from the truth does not change the existence of the truth.

  54. #55 spangled drongo
    March 6, 2010

    Bernard,

    You were wrong about tide periods, you were wrong about measuring currents on board boats and you are wrong about east coast SLs.

    Take a little free advice and in future pay a little more attention to what’s going on around you instead of what you read and do try to get over yourself.

    Bye, bye now.

  55. #56 Bernard J.
    March 6, 2010

    Oh so aptly named drongo.

    How exactly was I “wrong” about “tide periods”? To elaborate on your previous answer, I strongly encourage you to quote me and to link to my comments, and to link to any evidence that you yourself provided in counter.

    How exactly was I “wrong” about “measuring current”? To elaborate on your previous answer, I strongly encourage you to quote me and to link to my comments, and to link to any evidence that you yourself provided in counter. Note that this should be interesting, as it was you who claimed that the only way to measure current prior to the advent of GPS was “[by thermometer](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_47.php#comment-2301458)”. I look forward to your demonstration that the many other techniques that have been employed to map currents off the eastern coast of Australia and the rest of the world, and that don’t include the use of thermometers, were all first employed after the advent of GPS…

    And as far as the matter of “east coast SLs” goes, how exactly have you explained where I am wrong, and you are correct?

    Dude, there’s only one person who should be paying attention here, and it ain’t me.

    Come back you yellow-bellied coward and support with data and with evidence the nonsense that you’ve been spouting for the last month.

  56. #57 Chris O'Neill
    March 6, 2010

    Myself:

    I’m not the one trying to conclude anything from your observations. You are.

    What a deliberately dense numbskull the old drongo is. He doesn’t even realize he’s trying to make a conclusion when he says:

    neither I nor the sea is going to wet the bed any time soon.

    Fifteen million people in Bangla Desh may come to a different conclusion in the next 100 or so years.

  57. #58 Bernard J.
    March 16, 2010

    Oi! Drongo.

    We’re still waiting for your answer to [my question about why you believe it is valid to fit a linear regression trend line to an oscillating data set](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2287632).

    If the question really is too difficult for you (which makes one wonder why you then [presented the graph in the first place](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comment-2286729)), please feel free to ask cohenite, Louis Hissink, Jan Pompe, or whomever else you feel might be able to support you, to come here and have a go.

    As the shape of the curve traced in your link is vaguely wave-like, maybe you could ask one of those surfers who reckon that they can discern a lack of sea level rise over the last 50 years…

  58. #59 paulmurray
    November 25, 2010

    “In 2007, Simon Holgate of the U.K.’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory produced a history of global sea levels rise from 1904 to 2003″

    “, 1) the rate of sea level rise was, on average, greater in the first half of his record than the second”

    LOL! So we average the entire first 50 years and the entire second fifty years, and go “Well, there’s your two data points!” What happens, I wonder, if you go just a trifle finer?

Current ye@r *