Sea level rise acceleration

You only have to look at the graph below showing sea level rise since 1880 to see that it has accelerated from about 1mm/year at the end of the 19th century to about 3mm/year at present.(from CSIRO).

CSIRO_GMSL_figure

If you take a closer look at recent sea level rise you’ll see that it has been very consistent, only deviating from the trend line by about 10mm at any time.

sl_ns_global

 

So if you were unscrupulous, and wanted to try to make it look like sea level rise had decelerated what could you do? You could split the series at a point where sea level was above the trend line and compare trends before and after.  this is what Klaus-Eckart Puls did (green line added by me):

Puls_1

Of course, you could achieve the opposite effect by splitting at  a point in time where sea level was below the trend line.  Note that the trend for the first half, 3.5mm/year isn’t significantly different from the overall trend and that the latest measurement lies on the trend fitted to the first part of the data (the green line above).

Naturally, Andrew Bolt was taken in, claiming that sea level rise was slowing, oblivious to the fact that this contradicted his earlier claims that sea level had stopped rising.

Comments

  1. #1 bill
    January 6, 2013

    Woah; sciencey.

    While we have your attention, a direct answer to the simple question you’ve been asked multiple times, please. The BTP and ‘ASE’ is tosh, therefore Squidgy’s river wall marker cannot disprove anything: True or False? It’s not hard…

    You won’t give one, of course, and I wonder if the only person you’re fooling as to why is yourself. However, your continual obfuscations, while progressively less entertaining, are certainly instructive – indeed, illustrative. Don’t ever be fooled into thinking there’s only half-a-dozen of us reading this…

  2. #2 Lionel A
    January 6, 2013

    …Or how come a bird has to flap to fly?

    As the old song had it, ‘That ain’t necessarily so…’. How do you think the Condor, and many other birds of prey go about searching for prey?

    How do you think gliders, aeroplanes without engines, manage to stay aloft for hours? I have never seen a successful aircraft with flapping wings.

    Oh! And BTW a bird’s relationship with gravity is exactly the same, except for maybe the mass involved, as that of water.

    You just don’t ever thing carefully before writing do you. Analytical thought is a foreign land to you.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    January 6, 2013

    Yes indeed Anthony,
    ‘Isotropic’ is also a first principle.

    Oh my! Your ignorance goes deep.

    Isotropic is not synonymous with isostasy. Here is some help on that: Isostasy. Now also take particular note of the explanation under ‘Eustasy and relative sea level change‘ which may help you grok the basis of the arguments here.

  4. #4 Lionel A
    January 6, 2013

    On sea level the presentation by Richard Alley posted here at Climate Crocks is a must visit. Richard Alley is one of the most articulate scientists who has worked in the hostile field on ice masses. If you don’t know about that then check it out including his informative book The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future is a must read.

    For an indication of how quick on his ‘thinking feet’ Alley is his performance against Dana Rohrabacher is a must watch, see comment at the Crocks topic by caerbannog666.

  5. #5 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “Or how come a bird has to flap to fly?”

    Which shows that gravity isn’t an OVERRIDING influence.

    If gravity were overriding everything then birds would not be able to fly.

  6. #6 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    cham, do you even know what overriding means?

    Do you need to get a dictionary for your birthday?

  7. #7 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “In Wow’s bucket example however, as it is in waves, gravity is still an important part of that equation even though it can be ‘assumed’.”

    UPSIDE DOWN BUCKET YOU FRIGGING CLUELESS TWATFUCKFACE!!!!!

  8. #8 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    Is the problem you don’t understand what upside-down means you ignorant cunt?

  9. #9 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “I apologise that you find my use of terminology so terribly offensive.”

    No your actions are offensive you trolling twat.

  10. #10 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “Honestly, that might be the stupidest thing ever posted on Deltoid. Neither a bird nor water have a “relationship” with gravity, they are acted on by it.”

    And what the fuck does “relationship” mean???

    Are birds in a monogamous relationship with gravity whereas with water it has a polygamous one?

    Or is gravity the birds’ uncle, whereas it isn’t any member of the water family???

  11. #11 FrankD
    January 6, 2013

    Wow,

    Perhaps Water and Gravity are “In a relationship”, but for birds the status is “It’s Complicated”.

    Who knew there was a Facebook of Physics? :-)

  12. #12 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    cham here is certainly a twit er.

  13. #13 chameleon
    January 6, 2013

    :-) :-) :-)
    chuckle.
    You prove nothing at all by sooking over the use of terminology and arguing semantics.
    I really do have to get back to a ‘real’ life and stop playing in the ‘virtual’ world of the blogosphere but I will certainly miss the entertainment here.
    My first impression still stands.
    Instead of discussing content and the sensible and practical application of real world consequences of damage to coastal infrastructure, most of you here are only interested in arguing for arguments sake over word usage and which scientists know everything and which ones don’t (in your opinions.)
    This latest little fling with the laws of gravity and the isotropic nature of water is a classic example.
    We have people here who will introduce birds into a discussion about water and gravity and think they have contributed something worthwhile.
    What do you think you proved?
    That in your opinion I don’t use enough scientific jargon?
    Therefore I am unable to comment in a sufficiently intellectual manner (in your opinion?)
    And just so you know it’s not a blanket criticism, I did notice that David B and BoltFPM and Mr White and even SpangledD, actually did try to steer this discussion to practical concerns on several occasions.
    Mr Harvey at some point accused me of wearing a right wing libertarian heart on my sleeve.
    I could just as easily accuse Mr Harvey and others of wearing a left wing misanthropic heart on their sleeves.
    But so what?
    What does that achieve?
    I’m confident that the climate, the weather and the natural world couldn’t give a damn about your politics or mine.
    Neither do they care that much about human invented computer model trends.
    It is quite clear that coastal infrastructure is vulnerable to erosion and storms and it always has been. Humans have definitely very unwisely expected that their coastal infrastructure should just stay the same despite the obvious fact that coastlines have always and forever been vulnerable to change and erosion.
    The hotly argued amount of SLR that the models attribute to AC02 is not the actual problem we need to solve.
    You are all yelling here that something is happening and that it is all our fault.
    Well doh!
    Your’e partly right!
    Something is happening in coastal areas AND IT ALWAYS HAS!
    What are you personally doing about it other than arguing over the definitions of words and who has the best qualifications to comment?
    What have you personally done to limit your ‘addiction’ to fossil fuels and the overuse and wastage of natural resources?
    If you have ‘done something’ practical and measureable personally then congratulations.
    If you haven’t and you just keep screeching and arguing semantics on the blogosphere, then your arguments are purely academic.
    And BTW,
    Because some of you take yourselves so seriously and seem to lack a sense of humour, it is makes for very funny reading.
    Of course I know that my little rant here has fallen on deaf ears and that I have probably sparked off yet another tirade of ‘ritual intellectual humiliation’ , but it looks like you enjoy it, so have fun.
    I will decide myself whether it’s worth my time to comment again as I’m not a very big fan of people ‘shoulding’ on me.
    Or of course the moderator can make his/her decisions about that too.

  14. #14 chek
    January 7, 2013

    “AND IT ALWAYS HAS!”

    But we haven’t ‘always’ been so dependent or so many.

    Actually, on second thoughts, you aren’t that far removed from the imaginary volcanoes meme, in terms of pure pig-ignorance..

  15. #15 Vince Whirlwind
    January 7, 2013

    You know, I believed that Australia should send a peace-keeping mission to East Timor. I didn’t personally do anything practical and measurable to bring peace to East Timor. But the Government did. And it worked.

    So, having dealt with that red herring, let’s move on to Chameleon’s claim to having a sense of humour. Perhaps this can be read as an admission that he realises his contributions are laughable?

    As for comments about dealing with coastal erosion – does Chameleon not realise that warmer, rising waters necessarily spells more expenses to communities in that department? Does he not realise that if those waters are becoming warmer and higher as a result of human activity, then that human activity should be made to internalise the consequential expenses incurred by coastal communities as a result of the effects of that human activity?

    In other words, where has he been since 1980, that this discussion has somehow passed him by?

  16. #16 chameleon
    January 7, 2013

    No Chek,
    I definitely don’t ‘believe’ in imaginary underwater volcaloes.
    In fact the first person and the only person I have ever seen claim that there is such a thing as a ‘belief’ in imaginary underwater volcanoes is you.
    So do you ‘believe’ in such a thing as a ‘belief’ in imaginary underwater volcanoes Chek?
    Is that similar to the ‘belief’ that the world was going to end on 21/12/12?
    However here:
    But we haven’t ‘always’ been so dependent or so many.
    This is a more practical comment.
    It is true that population is growing.
    I’m not sure what you mean by so dependent?
    So dependent on what in particular?

  17. #17 chameleon
    January 7, 2013

    No Vince,
    SHE (!) is laughing at the comments you make.
    So you think the ‘government’ is capable of fixing it?
    What has the government ‘done’ to fix the vulnerable infrastructure Vince?
    We all could perhaps say that we ‘furiously agree’ that coastal infrastructure is vulnerable.
    If you like we can start from 1980, but I think coastal infrastructure has been in great need of some sensible and practical engineering solutions for much longer than that. Some local councils in Australia have indeed taken responsibility and ‘done something’ about some of the issues, including the area that Spangled D appears to come from.
    Maybe you could go back to an article linked by David B and another one linked by BoltFPM ealier in this thread that did indeed discuss these issues?

  18. #18 Richard Simons
    January 7, 2013

    Instead of discussing content and the sensible and practical application of real world consequences of damage to coastal infrastructure, most of you here are only interested in arguing for arguments sake over word usage and which scientists know everything and which ones don’t (in your opinions.)

    The argument was not primarily over who is correct, but what claims can be supported by the evidence. Claims that sea level rise is not increasing are not supported by the evidence. Claims that the rate of increase in sea level is decreasing are not supported by the evidence. Claims that the rate of increase in sea level is increasing are supported by the evidence (see the graph in the OP. Do appropriate statistics on it if you are not convinced).

    Claims that extreme tides in one tidal estuary adequately represent global sea level, that water “aggressively seeks equilibrium” and that agreement over definitions is purely academic are just woolly thinking.

    What do you think you proved?
    That in your opinion I don’t use enough scientific jargon?

    No. Jargon is not necessary, but clarity is. Throughout your presence here, your writings have demonstrated major gaps in your comprehension of climate and the way in which science is carried out, yet when people try to get you to understand, you assume that they are introducing red herrings and trying to irritate you. You need to display less arrogance, accept that you might just possibly be wrong and listen to what incredibly patient people like Lotharsson have to say to you.

    You get upset by the rude words people like Wow use to you. To a scientist, your refusal to listen to arguments, let alone to try to understand them, and to acknowledge when you have been wrong is the ultimate in rudeness. I’m not sure why I’m writing this – you will likely just dismiss it as part of a general ganging-up against you and it will completely fail to penetrate your hide.

  19. #19 Anthony David
    January 7, 2013

    chameleon

    It was you who introduced the [non sequitur] term isotropic, isostacy is a whole different concept which can be understood with a modicum of effort. These terms aren’t thrown in to bamboozle, but because they have concise meaning in the context of this topic of MSLR. This is a Science blog after all.

    The reason I mentioned these texts is because arguing for and against the science without a basic understanding of how the earth works is (as we have shown in spades) fruitless.

  20. #20 bill
    January 7, 2013

    :-) :-) :-)
    chuckle

    Good Grief! Gee, Chammy, I just found a picture of you.

    You really couldn’t answer the question could you?

    Thanks for demonstrating that you are merely another fussy, ignorant, self-important, pretentious blowhard dissembler with some really dubious friends – now feel free to sod off altogether.

    I notice BFPM disappeared at the moment the repugnant Spangled trainwreck became completely undeniable. Clearly he wasn’t made of the right stuff to be a true zealot of the cause..

  21. #21 bill
    January 7, 2013

    Whoops, unclosed bracket – hope that hasn’t derailed the comment thread…

  22. #22 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    Anthony, didn’t cham claim they were a postgraduate-educated scientist and their hubby was also a scientist?

    You would have thought that a REPUTABLE university would have told them the meanings of such terms.

    Maybe it was one of those mail-order PhDs.

  23. #23 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “I definitely don’t ‘believe’ in imaginary underwater volcaloes.”

    Oh you certainly DO believe in imaginary underwater volcanoes.

    And, just like all the believers in imaginary things (like fairies at the bottom of the garden or Santa Clause when you’re a little child), they believe they REALLY exist, and if you were to tell them they were imagining things, they’d say “No, Santa really IS real, I believe in the REAL santa, not an imaginary one, silly!”.

    You know, just like you’re doing.

    But when you show that the things they think are happening that “prove” the existence of santa or your imaginary underwater volcanoes ARE NOT HAPPENING, then that is proof that the thing they and you believe in really ARE imaginary.

    You just don’t believe in the evidence of their nonexistence.

    That doesn’t make them real. They are most definitely imaginary volcanoes.

  24. #24 David B. Benson
    January 7, 2013

    Maybe s/he was in her cups while posting?

  25. #25 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “My first impression still stands.”

    Yes, it is a common trait amongst the most stupid of people that once they have reached an opinion they don’t change it.

    We cannot use logic to explain you out of a position that you didn’t arrive through with logic.

    My first impression has turned out to be completely correct, however, hasn’t it.

  26. #26 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “Instead of discussing content and the sensible and practical application of real world consequences of damage to coastal infrastructure”

    When did you indicate anything along the lines of wanting THAT?

    All you’ve wanted to do is discuss how “it isn’t happening”.

  27. #27 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “Of course I know that my little rant here has fallen on deaf ears”

    Maybe the problem isn’t everyone else but actually you.

  28. #28 David B. Benson
    January 7, 2013
  29. #29 Lotharsson
    January 7, 2013

    My first impression still stands.

    So does mine. You came across as an ignorant troll confidently asserting things you read elsewhere but didn’t actually understand and didn’t realise were either false or vastly oversimplified, and subsequent evidence has only strengthened that impression.

    You prove nothing at all by sooking over the use of terminology and arguing semantics.

    Au contraire, we prove that you can’t even state your case in reasonably scientific terms, let alone substantiate it, and that you’ll try and pretend that the very pointing out of those facts is illegitimate. In science, definitions a.k.a. semantics are very important.

    (Also thus far we have amassed evidence arguably amounting to operational proof that you are rather poor at scientific thinking and in particular at physics, lousy at logic and massively overestimate your own cognitive abilities.)

    We have people here who will introduce birds into a discussion about water and gravity and think they have contributed something worthwhile.
    What do you think you proved?

    Well, that you:

    (a) don’t understand physics or climate science, amongst other things
    (b) can’t formulate a scientific hypothesis
    (c) don’t understand the implications of your own claims
    (d) don’t understand that you don’t understand physics
    (e) can be led to the water of understanding by commenters who are a lot better at it than you – but cannot be made to drink.
    (f) can and will misunderstand just about anything put to you at near world champion level.

    I could just as easily accuse Mr Harvey and others of wearing a left wing misanthropic heart on their sleeves.

    You could, but that would make you look like you don’t know the meaning of still other words, like “misanthropic”. Are you sure you want to add that to your litany of Epic Fail?

    Your comment is almost entirely an attempt to pretend to yourself that your claims haven’t been absolutely demolished, and introduce another set of squirrels that you hope will distract everyone from your neverending stream of Fail.

    I really do have to get back to a ‘real’ life and stop playing in the ‘virtual’ world of the blogosphere but I will certainly miss the entertainment here.

    Called it :-) Flounce number 3! Anyone wanna bet that this is the final one? My money’s on an imminent return. It usually takes more than three…

    Oh, wait, call off the bet:

    I will decide myself whether it’s worth my time to comment again as I’m not a very big fan of people ‘shoulding’ on me.

    …she’s gonna be back.

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    January 7, 2013

    … didn’t cham claim they were a postgraduate-educated scientist and their hubby was also a scientist?

    Not exactly, but I got the impression she wanted to give that impression. IIRC the words were that she has “academic science credentials” and something about her husband being a scientist.

    Minimum credentials for practicing (academic) science research ARE a Ph.D. in a relevant field – but given how bad chameleon is at precise semantics the first image that popped into my head was Jo Nova making vaguely similar claims on the back of her B.Sc. and her Graduate Certificate in Science Education, and her husband once claiming to be a “rocket scientist” when he’s not a scientist at all.

  31. #31 David B. Benson
    January 7, 2013

    Don’t middle school teachers have to earn “academic science credentials” before receiving a teaching certificate?

  32. #32 Vince Whirlwind
    January 7, 2013

    Didn’t I get “academic science credentials” when I got a D for Chemistry in Year 10?

  33. #33 Vince Whirlwind
    January 7, 2013

    The difference between myself and Chameleon being that it appears largely unfamiliar with the concept of using paragraphs to structure a piece of writing.

    So, perhaps no “academic credentials” in English, then.

  34. #34 Vince Whirlwind
    January 7, 2013

    Chameleon’s writing isn’t stark raving science-free and nutty enough to be Codling (who has form for making false claims about her and her hubby being scientists), but it does resemble Marohasy’s style. She used to be a scientist, stopped, and perhaps is now back to practising it now that she’s stopped taking pay from the IPA to denigrate science, although I have no idea who her hubby might be.

  35. #35 bill
    January 7, 2013

    The 24 carat nutter.

    Glad I am that I don’t live in that head! And note the update – ‘and it was all a dream!…’

  36. #36 Chris W
    January 7, 2013

    FWIW Bolt For PM reveals himself here …

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/?p=9930&cp=79#comment-520444

  37. #37 FrankD
    January 7, 2013

    Sooo, Chameleon flounces about complaining about non-scientific content of Jan 2013 OP, but when asked to explain herself in scientifically sensible terms, whines about “semantics” and flounces out again.

    I’m shocked and surprised…oh, wait a minute, I’m not surprised at all…I guess her hairdresser is struggling to explain gravity to her.

  38. #38 ianam
    January 7, 2013

    You prove nothing at all by sooking over the use of terminology and arguing semantics.

    In other words, nothing is proved by pointing out the errors in your incoherent scientifically illiterate nonsense rather than just agreeing with it.

    FWIW Bolt For PM reveals himself here …

    You’ve found the troll spawning grounds!

  39. #39 bill
    January 7, 2013

    …or a troll spawning ground, at any rate.

    I note the immediate defensive over-reaction to someone who’s actually not arguing with him. And then the Festival of the Obtuse resumes in earnest. Where the hell do they imagine the extra 200mm of water goes during a storm surge?…

  40. #40 ianam
    January 7, 2013

    you must live on a different planet where there are no large bodies of water that stay below the atmosphere or when you drop something it doesn’t fall down.

    No I’m merely not an ignorant moron like you who didn’t understand what I wrote because you’re missing the necessary conceptual apparatus.

    I stated two well-known basic facts of phsyics … that gravity is a very weak force and that it acts on all mass equally. That you think that implies any of the counterfactuals you listed is because you are stupid and ignorant.

    A bird’s relationship with gravity is different to water’s relationship with gravity.

    No, you imbecile, they different relationships to the atmosphere because birds have wings and a control system to drive them. But remove the atmosphere and they will plummet to the ground at the same (accelerating) rate.

  41. #41 bill
    January 7, 2013

    Gav, I am not arguing that SLR did NOT have a role in Sandy’s impact.

    BFPM. From over there. After someone posted a link pointing out the bleeding obvious to him.

    Um, yes you were; JAQing along in concert with the genuinely toxic and appalling uber-Denier Spangles.

    And, just to rub it in, should you be lurking about –

    The storm itself we can’t immediately link to climate change, but the flooding damage we can. As sea levels continue to rise, a storm of the same magnitude will cause even greater damages due to storm surges coming in on top of a higher “baseline” water level.

  42. #42 Vince Whirlwind
    January 7, 2013

    Chameleon provides us with a good conversation-starter:
    “What has the government ‘done’ to fix the vulnerable infrastructure Vince?”

    http://www.csiro.au/en/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Mathematics-Informatics-and-Statistics/CIPMA.aspx

    That was over 5 years ago.

    It’s hard to get into CIPMA, of course, but judging by the budget increases to AG’s and GA over the last few years, work could probably be assumed to be proceeding apace…

  43. #43 bill
    January 7, 2013

    Yeah, but, Vince, I notice they’re using ‘modelling’, so obviously [ make up any old snide/smug drivel and hurriedly change subject ]

    Reality’s strong liberal bias seems to be very much in play of late…

  44. #44 Lotharsson
    January 7, 2013

    Bolt For PM reveals himself here…

    And alleges chameleon “copped a hiding for just asking questions”.

    Er, no. Not even close.

    Similarly one “Debbie” also claims there was “a personal attack on Humlum”.

    Er, no.

    And that’s just on the page of comments you linked to.

    (Cohenite also shows up and asserts “SLR played no part in Sandy” which sets BFPM off on his incomprehension loop again…)

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    January 7, 2013

    “I’m confident that the climate, the weather and the natural world couldn’t give a damn about your politics or mine”

    What totally ignorant tosh. The fact is that certain socio-economic-political systems are spending natural capital like there is no tomorrow and are driving our planet’s ecological life support systems towards hell in a hand-basket. Chamy writes as if the natural world is forever buffered against any kinds of assaults inflicted on it by humanity.

    Along with her other examples of profound and willful ignorance, one can only wonder where she got her ‘science’ education.

  46. #46 bill
    January 7, 2013
  47. #47 ianam
    January 7, 2013

    if a bird stops flapping or gliding on it’s wings or if an aeroplane’s engines fail or even if a whirly wind stops blowing dust up in the air:
    What happens?

    What happens if the bird doesn’t stop flapping or gliding? Does gravity override lift and so it falls anyway?

    Even you will agree that no, gravity doesn’t override lift and the bird stays aloft.

    Now, what about water in the oceans that is affected by currents, winds, tides (the Earth isn’t the only source of gravity, y’know), variations in heat? Sure, if all of those forces completely ceased and only the Earth’s downward pull were acting on the water then the SL would be equal everywhere, but what if those forces don’t cease? (
    hint)

  48. #49 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “and only the Earth’s downward pull were acting on the water then the SL would be equal everywhere”

    How long would that take?

    Go on chammie, assume that the earth stopped spinning, the entire solar system and the rest of the universe disappeared and there’s a 5m difference in sea level height between the two most distant parts of the Pacific.

    How long would it take to “agressively” level out?

  49. #50 Chris W
    January 7, 2013

    Yep … good old Anthony Cox/Cohenite … can always be depended on to act like the purest distillation of all dickheads.

  50. #51 ianam
    January 7, 2013

    You comment about gravity being a very weak force is highly questionable.

    Wrong, you stupid arrogant ignoramus.

  51. #52 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    Note the title of the thread.

    They are openly admitting they are entirely and deliberately trolling.

    Shame is for humans, not for these idiots, apparently.

  52. #53 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    Also note that the trolls “JAQing off” are “just asking questions” when they do it, but if YOU do it to them, well then that’s “shoulding at them”. What does that mean?

    Oh, look, I’m “shoulding” at them again..!

    LMAO!

  53. #54 ianam
    January 7, 2013

    Note the title of the thread.

    Um, it has nothing to do with the trolling.

  54. #55 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    Well then the comments were well off topic.

  55. #56 Lotharsson
    January 7, 2013

    You comment about gravity being a very weak force is highly questionable.

    That certainly was a most amusing claim. I think chameleon thinks “weak” means something else, like many of the words she uses in the context of a scientific discussion.

  56. #57 Bernard J.
    January 7, 2013

    Readers might be interested to know that the swamp brewed some essence of Drongo.

  57. #58 Vince Whirlwind
    January 7, 2013

    “You comment about gravity being a very weak force is highly questionable.”

    Gosh, I missed that one.

    There is no way any creature can claim any science credentials if it is that unaware of physics.

    In other words, Chameleon is a liar.

  58. #59 chameleon
    January 7, 2013

    Interesting link Vince,
    There doesn’t seem to be any information about what they have actually done in practical terms.
    However it is good that they recognised 5 years ago that they should research potential risks.
    Do you know if they have recommended any practical, engineering work.
    Is that what the increased funding is for?
    As far as risk management re coastal erosion, there are plenty of examples from last century of what can be done as well as plenty of examples of what doesn’t work.
    As mentioned above, some local councils have taken responsibility and used engineering solutions to protect coastal infrastructure.

  59. #60 Bolt for PM
    January 7, 2013

    Yep, still lurking when I get a moment. Funnily enough, I did try to change my name to Graeme M but for some reason I never got through moderation:

    “Graeme M

    January 5, 2013
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    OK, I’ll drop the Bolt for PM thing, it WAS just a windup originally. I still think SD has a point, however thanks for all the various links and additional reading material etc. I’ve never really taken much notice of the SLR issue in the past but now I’ve dug around a bit it is fascinating. And that’s quite enough pseudo-reasonableness. Normal programming will now resume.”

    Anyways, my take on the SD thing after doing a fair bit of reading and digging through tide gauge data is that SLR is definitely in evidence going from tide gauges. My curiosity regarding the lack of apparent rise locally hasn’t been fully assuaged, however I do note that what data there is from the SE Qld coast seems to show very little rise over recent years (although that does seem to have changed in the past year or two), so perhaps we simply haven’t had enough rise for it to become obviously visible.

    I still would like to get the Sandy thing clearer in my mind though. Bill, you say:

    “And, just to rub it in, should you be lurking about –

    The storm itself we can’t immediately link to climate change, but the flooding damage we can. As sea levels continue to rise, a storm of the same magnitude will cause even greater damages due to storm surges coming in on top of a higher baseline water level.”

    I do NOT disagree that tide gauge data for The Battery shows SLR over 150 years or so. I don’t know to what extent local conditions have contributed, but let’s discount those factors. My point was that you can’t just asume that because mean sea levels show a rise of X, then X is the amount that the storm surge was increased by. Because sea level is at any time what it is, NOT the mean OVER time, we should surely have to know how much different the ACTUAL TIDE OF THE DAY was. That is, what was the predicted height of the time?

    It turns out it’s not easy for me at least to work out what a comparative tide might have been some time ago. And I do agree absolutely that all things being equal Sandy’s surge was greater now than had it struck in say 1880. Of course I cannot judge just how equal all those things might have been. Nonetheless, what I did come up with were figures for the MEAN high tide of the period 1960-1978, and compared that to the predicted tide height when Sandy struck. And what I came up with was a positive difference of between 0-53mm, yet MSL over the period 1960-2012 appears from the graphs to have increased by around 100-150mm. So over the past 50 years at least, I don’t think you can argue that SLR played a significant role.

    And I make nothing more from that than those numbers for that particular event. I was just curious about whether or not Sandy might have been exacerbated by SLR.

  60. #61 ianam
    January 7, 2013

    Over at Jennifer’s,, Stupid Dunce gives a text book demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. SD can’t believe that an intelligent person said something, merely because it doesn’t match SD’s own Stupidity-Derived beliefs.

  61. #62 ianam
    January 7, 2013

    Stupid Dunce: Water that is connected tries to find equilibrium.

    I guess it stops trying when it reaches a cliff, and that’s why there are no waterfalls. But when the water does flow down and connects with the water below, why doesn’t the water below rise up “aggressively” to achieve equilibrium? Or when the water reaches a barrier, I guess it doesn’t try to go over it and join the water on the other side because, y’know, the two bodies aren’t connected.

    But this is the way that stupid people like SD and chameleon think … shoddily, attributing intent and aggression to water, and a shared intent across all water that is “connected”, or special relationships between water and gravity.

    That’s why it’s called sea LEVEL!

    BWAHAHAH!

    SD is a level-headed fellow … someone sliced the top of his skull and brains clean off!

  62. #63 ianam
    January 7, 2013

    Here’s the sort of discussion and debate we should be having … not trying to get denier imbeciles to acknowledge the most basic facts:

    http://grist.org/climate-energy/natural-gas-its-a-hedge-not-a-bridge/

  63. #64 bill
    January 7, 2013

    BFPM – well, it appears that NOAA disagrees with you – but what would they know? And not only are you a fellow-traveller of the brazenly obnoxious here, you’re a regular at Marohasy’s, which makes you more clever than the CSIRO, the BoM, NASA, NOAA – the whole shebang!

    Doesn’t any part of your brain think ‘what the hell am I doing with these dropkicks? These are my peers?’

    Or do you also think that brown people are far too numerous, liars, and just after your (beloved) money? Or perhaps these are also just ‘questions’ that need ‘asking’?

    Creep.

    Great JAQing-off technique incidentally; you can look forward to not really quite crediting that it might not have been possible that all the remainder of the predicted inundations over the next few decades might not – that’s might, mind you, you’re not saying they were; in fact, you’re not really saying anything at all, are you, not really? – have been going to happen anyway, or there’s this other convenient proximate cause that the truly perverse might just decide to attribute the whole phenomenon to, and, I mean, really, no-one can stop you, can they? and then you can always demand the exact alternate numbers from the control Earth we lack, and in their absence proclaim yourself smugly and Solomonically unconvinced…

    Well, that’s your dotage sorted out. You might have to tone it down a bit, of course, because you may find yourself a little less popular with every new disaster that people perversely fail to grasp the perverse interpretation of; but, hell, what larks, eh? Nyuk nyuk.

  64. #65 Bolt for PM
    January 7, 2013

    Gosh, Bill. You’re a dick. But that’s OK, I won’t hold it against you.

    How does NOAA disagree with me?

    As for Ianam, welll… I think that last post of yours was a special kind of asshat-edness (I made that word up, clever huh?).

    Here’s a question for you. Imagine a box half full of water. Imagine a divider that seals completely, dividing the box in half vertically. Now fill one half so it is higher than the other. Remove seal. What happens? The water ‘aggressively’ seeks ‘equilibrium’.

    Why should that, generally speaking, not happen for the ocean? Sure there will be various local effects and all sorts of other things going on, but you’d assume that again, generally speaking, an ocean should endeavour to be largely level. Why does it not?

  65. #66 ianam
    January 7, 2013

    I think that last post of yours was a special kind of asshat-edness

    Ah yes, because you, like SD and chameleon, are too bloody stupid to understand it.

    Now fill one half so it is higher than the other. Remove seal. What happens? The water ‘aggressively’ seeks ‘equilibrium’.

    And is that because the two sides are “connected”? What if you just remove the top part of the seal (to below the level of the higher portion of water) … does it just sit there because the two bodies aren’t connected? I already gave the examples of waterfalls and … –> barriers <– over which water flows even when it isn’t connected to the water on the other side … didn’t you even bother to read what I wrote?

    The water ‘aggressively’ seeks ‘equilibrium’.

    No it doesn’t; that is simply the wrong causal model — there is no seeking and there certainly is no aggression. The water level will eventually (not “aggressively”) reach equilibrium for purely mechanistic reasons that have nothing to do with seeking or being connected — water will flow to the lowest surface it isn’t prevented from reaching — this is the result of the basic Newtonian mechanics of unbalanced forces — whether that surface is more water or not.

    Why should that, generally speaking, not happen for the ocean?

    No one says it shouldn’t. Why do you fools always falsely attribute beliefs and claims? Oh, I’ve already explained it: because your too stupid to grasp the complexity of the claims people are actually making.

    Sure there will be various local effects and all sorts of other things going on

    Such as what apply to Stupid Dunce’s rivers.

    but you’d assume

    No, one would expect; cretins assume.

    that again, generally speaking

    Very generally. As I already pointed out, the oceans are sitting on the crust, not floating up in the air.

    an ocean should endeavour to be largely level.

    Oceans don’t “endeavor” to do anything. The ocean will be “largely level” to the degree that results from the entire interplay of forces on the entire body of water … which is very large and complex.

    Why does it not?

    It does, but “largely” includes large variations across locales because of those “various local effects and all sorts of other things going on”. Sheesh; this really isn’t hard to understand if you just try a little. What is critical to grasp in order to understand the point being made here is that Stupid Dunce is arguing that, because water is so “aggressive” in “seeking equilibrium”, that his local observations of sea level imply that the sea level across the globe is not rising. But you know that isn’t true.

  66. #67 Vince Whirlwind
    January 7, 2013

    BfPM is a moron.
    How could the ocean possibly be “level” when it is bound by gravity to a layer of an irregular-shaped body that is in motion in 3 dimensions.
    Yet more demonstration that these deniers are simply stupid.

    And Chameleon – for fairly obvious reasons, the information collected and generated by CIPMA isn’t publicly disseminated.
    You can get an idea of the sort of stuff they provide here:
    http://www.ga.gov.au/ausgeonews/ausgeonews200609/modelling.jsp

    But, more to the point, you can check the changing Shire- and City council policies on low-level developments to see how increasing awareness of the risks posed by the increasing sea level is affecting how we build near shorelines.

  67. #68 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    The water ‘aggressively’ seeks ‘equilibrium’.

    No it doesn’t

    And of course I already gave an example that shows that, but shoddy sloppy thinkers like Dolt for PM ignore the challenging examples or questions that might make them think and instead jump to their own stupid blatantly obvious examples and questions that show nothing that anyone other than a strawman has disagreed with.

    My example was of a waterfall that “connects” to water in the river below, but water flowing down a slope will do. Why does the water at the top “aggressively seek equilibrium” by flowing downwards but the water at the bottom doesn’t “aggressively seek equilibrium” by flowing upwards? The Dolts and Dunces will think that’s a stupid question because it’s obviously due to that “special relationship” between water and gravity, completely missing the point that, yes, it’s because of gravity (and all other forces combined), not because water “aggressively seeks equilibrium” — it does no such thing; that is the wrong causal model. The water flowing down the slope will never reach equilibrium unless the supply of water ceases or the water below is dammed and thus rises to the level of the top of the slope … and to figure out what happens then, we have to look back along the entire incoming flow of water. Now … does that suggest anything about rivers?

  68. #69 bill
    January 8, 2013

    Gosh, Bill. You’re a dick. But that’s OK, I won’t hold it against you.

    Wow, that’s great material. Are you winging it, or do your writers handle the retorts?

    Indicative of me getting a little-too-close to the mark, methinks. Did you imagine you’d end up hanging out with the silver-haired brownshirts? But ‘Just Asking Questions, of course… ;-)

    Frankly, getting up the noses of mealy-mouthed cowards does not trouble me in the least. ‘Hated by all the right people’, as Noam Chomsky says.

    And where did the link I provided here go to, little man? Look at the institution/s the interviewee hails from. Perhaps that’s all not as authoritative as the crowd at Marohasy’s, of course…

    Read the bloody article. And then feel an even bigger fool – but just get angrier because you can’t admit it to yourself.

  69. #70 chameleon
    January 8, 2013

    ianam,
    you have just furiously agreed.
    A good but very angry description of the behaviour of water as dictated by gravity.
    At no point did anyone say that water’s natural behaviour can’t be altered by various other factors.
    But nonetheless you are entirely correct that water will always run downhill UNLESS it obstructed or is temporarily forced in the other direction by such things as pumps or strong winds or geographic barriers etcetera.

  70. #71 Richard Simons
    January 8, 2013

    Nonetheless, what I did come up with were figures for the MEAN high tide of the period 1960-1978, and compared that to the predicted tide height when Sandy struck. And what I came up with was a positive difference of between 0-53mm, yet MSL over the period 1960-2012 appears from the graphs to have increased by around 100-150mm.

    Anyone who has any experience of the sea will know that tides at any one place will vary a lot in their magnitude so comparing a specific recent high tide to a decades-old mean is not useful. If you allow for the high tide at the time Sandy struck being a relatively small one, then perhaps it will make sense to you (I can’t be bothered to check out the actual figures for you).

  71. #72 Richard Simons
    January 8, 2013

    I visited Jennifer’s blog and read a bunch of comments about how the people on Deltoid are smart but they just don’t understand. Classic!

  72. #73 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    Now fill one half so it is higher than the other. Remove seal. What happens? The water ‘aggressively’ seeks ‘equilibrium’.

    Suppose that, instead of the lower side being filled with water, it’s a solid block. What happens when we remove the seal? The water spills onto the block, and the resulting level is exactly the same as when the lower side is filled with water. It has nothing to do with the water on the two sides becoming “connected”, and everything to do with unbalanced forces … equilibrium is reached when the forces are balanced, even though there’s a lot more water on one side than on the other.

    Suppose that, instead of a block and a column of water, there are two blocks, with the water resting on one … say that block reaches half of the way above the other block and the water reaches the rest of the way. Now, when the seal is removed, all of the water spills from the one block onto the other. The water level was in equilibrium before the seal was removed, and it is in equilibrium after the seal is removed … after pouring entirely from one block to the other (except for a few drops that can’t make it due to being impeded by frictional forces). Why did it bother to do that if it “aggressively seeks equilibrium”? Well, of course, because it does no such thing; it’s just the wrong way to think about it, and leads to erroneous conclusions.

  73. #74 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    you have just furiously agreed

    Yes, that’s why you cretins are arguing with a strawman.

    But nonetheless you are entirely correct that water will always run downhill UNLESS it obstructed or is temporarily forced in the other direction by such things as pumps or strong winds or geographic barriers etcetera.

    All the things that make Stupid Dunce’s claims — and your and Dolt’s support for them — wrong and stupid.

  74. #75 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    you have just furiously agreed

    Yes

    Except that that I didn’t agree with you moron’s imbecilic conception of water “aggressively seeking equilibrium” … I refuted it. The problem with you morons is that you are capable of seeing that my examples are valid — I made them simple enough that even cretins like you will see that — but you are incapable of connecting the dots and seeing how they falsify your claims. Repeatedly I said that water does not “aggressively seek equilibrium”, but now you say we agree! No, we agree on the validity of my examples, but we disagree on how stupid and deluded and mistaken you are about that claim, which was the point of the examples.

  75. #76 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    At no point did anyone say that water’s natural behaviour can’t be altered by various other factors.

    And this captures that deep deep stupidity in a nutshell. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the “natural behavior” is based on all the forces acting — we (the non-imbeciles) have understood this since Newton. That is the correct way to understand physical behavior, not “special relationships” or “aggressively seeking” … the Earth does not “aggressively seek” an elliptical orbit around the sun and an apple does not “aggressively seek” to not Newton on the noggin.

  76. #77 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    s/not/hit/

  77. #78 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    Maybe, chameleon, you’ll now agree that

    You comment about gravity being a very weak force is highly questionable.

    was wrong, ignorant, stupid, and arrogant. I think they teach that gravity is the weakest force in elementary school these days.

  78. #79 chameleon
    January 8, 2013

    So ianam?
    Are you just angry about the terminology?
    Of course the natural behaviour is based on all the forces acting.
    However,
    From your own example, we seem to agree that water will naturally run downhill as dictated by gravity, including spill over a cliff in a waterfall.
    And Vince?
    I had already mentioned that local shires had taken some responsibility in this area, well before the formation of this particular federal body.
    I wanted to know if this 5 year old organisation was using and collating information from said local councils and recommending (and perhaps funding?) practical engineering solutions for some of the vulnerable infrastructure?
    I agree that it isn’t wise to build in low lying areas on coastlines, I don’t believe that has ever been proven to be a particularly smart thing to do.
    There is plenty of evidence from all sorts of places that eventually the ocean will defeat you whether via storms, king tides, inland flooding or a myriad of other well known facts about the dangers of building permanent infrastructure in low lying coastal areas.

  79. #80 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    “That’s why it’s called sea LEVEL!”

    Well, explain RIVER LEVEL.

    Go on.

    It’s sloping down, which causes the river to *flow*.

    But we call the level of the water in the river “the river level”.

    And that is true of the rivers running down from Yarlung Tsangpo (altitude 3200m) and the river Jordan (altitude 400m).

    Maybe you’re just an idiot.

    Ever considered that?

  80. #81 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    “At no point did anyone say that water’s natural behaviour can’t be altered by various other factors.”

    Yup, you’ve said nothing, taking a shitload of words to not say it.

    Ever wondered if you can’t find anything to communicate because you’re too stupid to think?

  81. #82 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    “Now fill one half so it is higher than the other. Remove seal. What happens?”

    Now what happens if that container is 2000 miles across.

  82. #83 David B. Benson
    January 8, 2013

    Interesting animation and graphics in
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami
    although that doesn’t have much to due with anything other than a temporary (but large) SLR. Still, it illustrates the solution to the Euler equations due to a step function.

  83. #84 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    “Of course the natural behaviour is based on all the forces acting.”

    Then calculate the forces acting on the pacific ocean.

    Or can’t you actually do any maths?

  84. #85 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    So ianam?
    Are you just angry about the terminology?
    Of course the natural behaviour is based on all the forces acting.
    However,
    From your own example, we seem to agree that water will naturally run downhill as dictated by gravity, including spill over a cliff in a waterfall.

    I’ve already explained, but you are impenetrably stupid.

  85. #86 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    Now, why would you not agree that the movement of water is reduced because of viscous flow forces retarding motion.

    This is, after all, why your rivers don’t accelerate faster and faster, becoming raging torrents screaming past you at the mouth of the river, having been accelerating because of gravity for all the hundreds of miles the river has been flowing.

    Or do rivers “aggresively level” on your planet “Cuckoo”?

  86. #87 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2013

    you have just furiously agreed

    Yes, he has.

    With scientific understanding.

    What he clearly hasn’t done – clearly to anyone using more than a few brain cells, which just to be clear self-evidently does not include you on this topic – is agree with the mental model that you are “aggressively seeking” concurrence with.

    Only a dolt would (once again) tell someone that their careful and precise disagreement is “furious agreement”.

    You are that dolt. You don’t have to be – but that’s entirely up to you.

    Mind you, one would have to severely misunderstand physics and English to suggest:

    Are you just angry about the terminology?

    …so you have your work cut out for you. Learning to think for the first time isn’t trivial.

    At no point did anyone say that water’s natural behaviour can’t be altered by various other factors.

    Moronic! SD’s argument relies on precisely that.

    Or to be more precise – which will no doubt be lost on you, as the bulk of your and SD’s “argument” relies on NOT being specific – SD’s argument asserts that there are bounds on the magnitude of the effects of other factors – bounds that are clearly counter-factual.

  87. #88 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2013

    Chameleon, here’s a key problem with your argument (apart from the fact that it’s not physics, but let’s wave the “not physics” aside for the moment, merely for the sake of this argument.)

    How would one use the “principle” of “water aggressively seeks equilibrium” to calculate the maximum variation in sea level rise across the globe? I’m not asking for SD-like pontification or vague English descriptions. I’m asking how you would get to a defensible number.

    I’m all ears.

  88. #89 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    water will naturally run downhill as dictated by gravity

    Again we can see chameleon’s conceptual failures and science illiteracy … she apparently doesn’t grasp that concept of forces, but instead thinks that gravity is some sort of (overriding) authority that orders water to flow downhill … when it isn’t ordering to stay level. And water, brownnoser that it is, aggressively seeks to follow those orders, despite pesky interference from all those unnatural annoyances like turbulence and viscosity.

    It’s understandable that people who sloppily think in such simplistic animist, narrative terms have trouble understanding why SD’s rivers wouldn’t reflect the same level changes as the oceans at large because, hey, they’re all connected, man.

  89. #90 chameleon
    January 8, 2013

    Lotharsson,
    I was merely wondering why you and others got so upset and angry with the term ‘aggressively seeks equilibrium’.
    I am also nonplussed why you and others thought my comment about the isotropic nature of water meant that I thought it was the same as isostacy?
    I re read my comment and it seems you all must have missed the ‘so is’ part of that very short comment?
    Without trying to get complicated, that could mean ‘also’ or ‘as well as’.
    I certainly did not say ‘the same as’ or that it was a ‘synonym’.
    I agree that ‘aggressively seeks equliibrium’ isn’t an accepted academic or scientific term, but I don’t think there was anything inherintly wrong with Spangled D expressing it in that manner. It was fairly clear what Spangled D meant by that. (to me at least)
    That does not then neccessitate me having to come up with a ‘number’ that I would need to get in a ditch over.
    I actually don’t think there is a solid ‘defensible number’ that anyone (including you) should have to get in a ditch over.
    As has been commented here over and over again, there are far too many variables involved.
    Why is it so necessary to get to a defensible number?
    What is it exactly that would need to be defended by a defensible number?

  90. #91 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    For just how far astray people can go with such rules (which are really consequences under certain ideal conditions) as “water aggressively seeks equilibrium” or “water seeks its own level”, see http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Science/Question627023.html

    Flat Earth
    If 75% of the world’s surface is water and water finds its own level, why is the world not flat

    Almost as fascinating as the mental confusion in the question is the “answer” that the person who asked the question gives:

    The answer is that any curved surface is made up of infinitesimally small straight lines.

    QED

    Gotta love that wholly inappropriate “QED”.

  91. #92 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    I don’t think there was anything inherintly wrong with Spangled D expressing it in that manner.

    Of course you don’t, because you’re a write-only imbecile, incapable of comprehending any explanation of how it is in error.

  92. #93 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    That does not then neccessitate me having to come up with a ‘number’ that I would need to get in a ditch over.
    I actually don’t think there is a solid ‘defensible number’ that anyone (including you) should have to get in a ditch over.
    As has been commented here over and over again, there are far too many variables involved.
    Why is it so necessary to get to a defensible number?
    What is it exactly that would need to be defended by a defensible number?

    SD claims that the number is zero, or close to it. He argues this on principle … the principle that “water aggressively seeks equilibrium”. How might one get from the principle to “zero”? If there is defensible no way to do so, then “a billion meters” could also be consistent with the “principle”, making the principle … and SD’s inferences from it … worthless.

  93. #94 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    How would one use the “principle” of “water aggressively seeks equilibrium” to calculate the maximum variation in sea level rise across the globe?

    I think the concept of a defensible calculation of a maximum is outside Chammy’s experience and ken.

  94. #95 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    What does the “principle” say about this, considering that ocean and river water have different densities?

  95. #96 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    Richard Simons:

    “Anyone who has any experience of the sea will know that tides at any one place will vary a lot in their magnitude so comparing a specific recent high tide to a decades-old mean is not useful. If you allow for the high tide at the time Sandy struck being a relatively small one, then perhaps it will make sense to you (I can’t be bothered to check out the actual figures for you)”.

    Richard, that is precisely my point. Sea level at any given moment is NOT a mean value, it is an actual value. And we have the records to be able to make an assessment. Now we know that Sandy struck near high tide, and that was the big fear. Clearly, whether it struck at high or low tide would make a difference to the height of the water at the time.

    The question is, how much of a difference? I DID check the figures. But I may have gotten them wrong, I’ll freely admit. Here’s what I found.

    First, it would be easy enough to argue for a ‘baseline’ increase and claim THAT is what we can say was added to the storm surge. But I think that’s overly simplistic. IF we could come up with the figures to compare 1960 to 2012, we would have a number. It may not necessarily prove anything as tides do vary, but the variation is not THAT extreme.

    This plot shows tidal values for 12 months:
    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/cgi-bin-mp/data_plot.cgi?mins=&datum=6&unit=0&stn=8518750&bdate=20111110&edate=20121109&data_type=wl&relative=&type=Historic%20Tide%20Data&shift=g&plot_size=large&relative=&wl_sensor_hist=W3&plot_backup=

    You’ll see from this that while values range from around 1 metre to 2 metres, the average is around 1.5-ish. So on the basis of that one year’s data, it seems safe to assume there is no major variation away from a mean value, although sadly the NOAA site won’t let me use a longer period.

    Now, sea level according to the gauge data HAS increased since 1870, however I can only find data of much shorter vintage. I wanted real tide data, not mean values. Unfortunately again, the NOAA site won’t give me that.

    So, what I did have to work with is the mean value for the period 1960-78, and the actual values for 2012. As tide heights and predictions are made using the Mean Lower Low Water datum, it would seem using a mean value is acceptable for assessing the water level at a particular time.

    What I found is that the 1960-78 mean value for a high tide was 2393mm, adjusted for the actual local benchmark offset. The predicted tide height for October 29 2012 was 1444mm, which adjusted for the current benchmark offset is 2446mm. So, the tide at the time of Sandy was predicted to be around 50mm higher than for the 60-78 mean value. But as the 2393mm is a MEAN value, we know that some tides must have been above that value, so it is possible the difference is less than 50mm.

    This is useful to some extent, as the argument of the OP is that SLR is accelerating. This implies greater effects as time passes, so the fact that we only have some 50 odd years of data here is not so inconsequential. Granting too that I understand the greater forcing from anthropogenic contributions is most marked in the period since around 1950, then we have some good representative data for the claim.

    See here for evidence that global ocean heat content has risen most sharply since 1950 (see slide 1):
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    See here for the averaged SLR rate for The Battery which does show a slow down from 1940-1980, but an increase from 1980 to the present day:
    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/battery_30yrate2.jpg

    On the whole, I conclude that SLR effects from AGW should be more noticeable at The Battery for the period post 1940 than for the period prior. I grant that SLR IS occurring according to the data. I conclude however, that there is little evidence for a significant impact from AGW driven SLR in the past half century. I DO however accept that SLR is occurring and future storm surges may be influenced by that and this should be accounted for in local planning.

    By the way, the tide gauge at The Battery is inside the harbour some distance from the actual river mouth. Do you think any of the factors so strenuously claimed to invalidate SD’s obs might apply here?

  96. #97 David B. Benson
    January 8, 2013

    Bolt for PM — Tide in the Hudson goes way up river. Maybe still measurable at Troy.

  97. #98 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    David Benson, I could try that, but wouldn’t there be the potential for the confounding factors that have been proposed for invalidating SD’s obs? Sandy Hook might be another option too, I may have a look at that later if I have time.

    I am making no claim that I’ve got the numbers right, it is more the conceptual approach for establishing the extent to which Sandy’s surge might have been affected by SLR.

  98. #99 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2013

    I re read my comment…

    I have no idea which one you mean. Try quoting it if you want people to reconsider it.

    I was merely wondering why you and others got so upset and angry with the term ‘aggressively seeks equilibrium’.

    I’m neither upset or angry.

    But I’m pretty sure you did more than “merely wonder about a term”. You (breezed right past my earlier explanation of why it’s used as part of SD’s flawed argument to) assert that it’s a valid principle. You also refused to examine that earlier explanation after I pointed it out to you.

    Do you see the difference between being “upset” at a term and disagreeing with the claim that a vaguely worded principle is physically valid?

    And then you refused to acknowledge that as written the “principle” is physically incoherent, and refused to define it precisely enough to do calculations with, and still refused to look at previous arguments pointing out it is flawed…

    And:

    I don’t think there was anything inherintly wrong with Spangled D expressing it in that manner

    Look! You’re doing it again!

    You seem to have decided no new knowledge will enter your brain, and you’re just going to reiterate the same crap over and over again.

    That does not then neccessitate me having to come up with a ‘number’ that I would need to get in a ditch over.

    No, it doesn’t. But you have to do one of two things which thus far you clearly cannot do:

    1) Demonstrate that it is a valid general physical principle (which would require defining it in physics terms – “aggressive” and “seeking” are not physical concepts, and “equilibrium” is far more general a concept than the way you are trying to use it).

    2) Demonstrate that it is valid for the specific use SD puts it to.

    Since you say (2) isn’t necessary for you, I await your best attempt at (1) – or your withdrawal of the assertion that it’s a valid principle.

    That is, of course, assuming you are willing to begin engaging in a rational exchange of ideas. So far you’ve indulged in almost every “No” path in that flow chart.

  99. #100 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    Oh and Bill, the comment above is also a response to your comment beginning:
    “Wow, that’s great material. Are you winging it, or do your writers handle the retorts?”

    The linked article makes the same claim of an ‘increased baseline’. I am proposing another way to think about the matter. Maybe it’s been thought of before, maybe I am way off beam. But you could try considering the idea.

    As for my retorts, I come up with them all by myself. Mummy doesn’t even help me.

Current ye@r *