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 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2013

    …it is more the conceptual approach for establishing the extent to which Sandy’s surge might have been affected by SLR.

    The simplest conceptual approach is to figure out the sea level rise in the locale from the long term average sea level data which is used to measure sea level in the locale. You know, the approach that you appear to be rejecting as “overly simplistic” – without being able to pin down why directly measuring what you’re actually trying to measure is “too simplistic”, let alone why measuring something else instead and then trying to infer what you want to measure is more appropriate.

  2. #2 David B. Benson
    January 8, 2013

    Bolt for PM — The Battery tide gauge must be right beside Battery Park. The point is that that the measurement location you have; stick with it.

    [You are close to convincing me that anthropogenic SLR had an almost negligible addition effect during Frankenstorm Sandy’s wipe out of New Jersey and New York.]

  3. #3 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    Lotharsson, how about you evaluate what I’ve actually done? I think it IS overly simplistic to just say that an averaged value is the actual value.

    To properly assess how much the tide of the day was affected by SLR would require that we know how high the same tide was at some distance in the past. I have selected 1960 as my target date.

    If we had that data, we could say here is the height in 1960 and here’s the height today. The difference is the extent to which SLR contributed. Can you argue against that?

    Now, I have said I can’t get that data. But I *can* get a mean height for that tide which sets a lower bound on my comparison range, and I *can* get the predicted height of that tide in 2012.

    I think that gets me pretty close to what I asked. Tell me why not.

  4. #4 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    Do you think any of the factors so strenuously claimed to invalidate SD’s obs might apply here?

    Don’t be a jerk. It is SD who strenuously claims that his eyeballing of river levels + “water aggressively seeks equilibrium” => there’s been no global SLR. You know that he is wrong. All that has been argued here is that his principle is wrong and that some combination of factors contributes to the difference between his observations and global SL.

  5. #5 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    Thank you David B. I actually had no axe to grind with Sandy, this is just what I came up with when I thought about it. I might be quite wrong, but explain why I am rather than making unsubstantiated claims as Richard Simons did when he said, “you’re wrong but I can’t be bothered looking at the figures” or Lotharsson who says “hey sea level did rise so it must have contributed at the max possible averaged value”

  6. #6 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    All those arguing against SD’s claim of aggressive equilibrium, tell me how regular would the sea surface height be for the Pacific Ocean over its extent when measured against the geoid, if we absented the effects of heat, currents and wind?

    And in this hypothetical, if the Indian Ocean were completely disconnected from the Pacific Ocean AND it were say 100 metres higher, what would happen were we to connect each via a large canal?

  7. #7 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    All those arguing against SD’s claim of aggressive equilibrium, tell me

    No. Take a look at the link Loth posted about rational discussion, and then first address the points actually made against SD’s claim.

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

    Bolt for PM — If I understand matters aright, without wind and currents the sea level would be at the geoid.

    The Indian Ocean connects to the Pacific via the Indonesian archipelago; the connection being not open there is quite a height above geoid difference. During La Nina the height difference is lessened.

  9. #9 David B. Benson
    January 8, 2013

    Not fully open.

    But even with no obstacles, the sea level off Taiwan is over 100 meters above the geoid.

  10. #10 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    what would happen were we to connect each via a large canal?

    Here’s a prime example of a violation of the rules of rational debate. You already gave your experiment of two columns of water of different heights and, as I noted, no one disagrees that the water will flow from the higher column to the lower column. Attacking your stupid strawman in yet another way won’t get a different result. Meanwhile you have failed to address any of our arguments and experiments. That’s because you’re an intellectually dishonest jackass … and sadly for you, your failure to follow the rules of rational debate lead you to not learn anything from anyone.

  11. #11 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    Richard Simons did when he said, “you’re wrong but I can’t be bothered looking at the figures”

    He didn’t say that, liar. If you’re going to use quote marks, put inside of them things that people actually said.

  12. #12 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    Here is what Richard actually wrote:

    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).

    Nowhere did he say you’re wrong. You yourself said “Richard, that is precisely my point.”

  13. #13 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    See Ianam, you argue by way of being a jerk, just like Billy boy. I don’t have time to read every comment in detail or every link so I have no idea what you are talking about regarding rational debate.

    How about you simply address the actual example and question? It seems simple enough to me. Your earlier response was crap, a deliberate effort to obfuscate a simple proposition.

    David B, “Bolt for PM — If I understand matters aright, without wind and currents the sea level would be at the geoid. The Indian Ocean connects to the Pacific via the Indonesian archipelago; the connection being not open there is quite a height above geoid difference. During La Nina the height difference is lessened. But even with no obstacles, the sea level off Taiwan is over 100 meters above the geoid.”

    Yes, but that 100 metres is the result of currents etc I would have thought? Absent those effects?

  14. #14 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    Oh and sorry for not putting the actual words in the quotes, Ianam. Sue me. Jerk.

  15. #15 David B. Benson
    January 8, 2013

    Bolt for PM — See my earlier comment.

  16. #16 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    See Ianam, you argue by way of being a jerk

    Tone troll asshole.

    I don’t have time to read every comment in detail or every link so I have no idea what you are talking about regarding rational debate.

    Right, you’re a write-only asshole who can’t be bothered with what anyone else says.

    How about you simply address the actual example and question?

    You first, asshole. As I noted, I’ve already addressed your previous experiment, in several posts. People have already given numerous arguments against SD’s claim. You haven’t addressed any of them … instead you present yet another pointless attack on a strawman. Because you’re an asshole.

  17. #17 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    Oh and sorry for not putting the actual words in the quotes, Ianam.

    Sorry doesn’t cut it, asshole, because as I noted, what you did put in quotes was a lie — it’s not what Richard said or meant.

    Jerk.

    Yeah right, pointing out that you’re a dishonest sack of shit makes me a jerk. Go to hell, asshole.

  18. #18 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    I don’t have time to read every comment in detail or every link so I have no idea what you are talking about regarding rational debate.

    You really have to marvel at these write-only shitstain trolls who don’t have time to read numerous rebuttals of their comments but have plenty of time to pose yet another thought experiment without ever addressing the comments of the previous one. As I’ve said before, it’s neurotic to engage with these shitholes … I admit it.

  19. #19 Bernard J.
    January 8, 2013

    Graeme M said:

    I still think SD has a point

    No, he doesn’t. Drongo hasn’t accounted for:

    1) impounding resulting from river damming
    2) flood levels
    3) dredging and bar shifting
    4) river mouth engineering
    5) canal development, bank engineering, drainage engineering
    6) solar, lunar, and orbital tilt conjunctions, and the effects of apsides
    7) regional ocean current effects
    8) El Niño/La Niña impacts
    9) dynamic wave setup and wave runup effects
    10) tectonic trends

    And that’s just the list that I’m talking from the top of my head – I can’t be shagged rereading this and previous threads for other points that I and others have raised over time (others might like to list things I’ve omitted).

    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

    To what data are you referring? The data I’ve seen shows increase in SE Queensland, although it is locally less than either north or south. However this local relatively less increase is no refutation of global sea level rise, which has always been Drongo’s overarching claim.

    And like it or not, the sea level is rising.

  20. #20 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    It seems simple enough to me.

    Of course, because you’re an arrogant sack of Dunning-Kruger shit and can’t imagine that you’re wrong, so your approach to “debate” is to get others to admit to something that they have never denied because you think that implies that you’re right because you’re too stupid to conceive of anything else. And because you’re an arrogant stupid piece of shit you feel no need to read, let alone address, other people’s questions, points, and thought experiments. Go to hell, asshole, you make me sick.

  21. #21 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    And like it or not, the sea level is rising.

    The bizarre thing is that Dolt for PM has now said so, several times, and yet he still wants to defend SD’s idiocy even though the whole point of that idiocy is to infer that SL isn’t rising. Ah well, trying to penetrate the mind of such a stupid shitstain isn’t worth the effort.

  22. #22 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    Yes, but that 100 metres is the result of currents etc I would have thought? Absent those effects?

    If you take away all the effects that work against complete global equilibrium of sea level (if that were even possible), then you get complete global equilibrium of sea level; duh — tautology. Does that imply that “water aggressively seeks equilibrium”? Uh, no, so … major logic fail. Might it be true nonetheless that “water aggressively seeks equilibrium”? No, for reasons already explained that the write-only sack of shit can’t be bothered to read or comprehend.

  23. #23 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    OK, seeing as we are on a roll. Here’s a question regarding tide gauge data. Now remember, my math and physics is extremely limited, so my question could be a completely ignorant one. If so, JerkIAm oops sorry, Ianam will tell me so in no uncertain terms and I’ll chuckle at his frothing foaming incoherence. However maybe someone else can explain to me clearly and simply where my thinking is in error.

    Tide gauge data is as far as I can tell a reading of tide heights taken at strictly regular intervals. Mean Sea Level is an averaging of those values. When I think about that, it hurts my head. But here’s my thought, such as it is.

    Is the statistical averaging taking into account any skewing caused by actual tidal irregularity?

    If tides rose and fell by precisely the same amount at precisely the same intervals, and high/low tide was held for only so long as any other point in the cycle, then regular readings would indeed give us a reasonable average.

    But, what if the rate of rise/fall was slower near high tide than near low tide, or high tide as a value was held for longer than low tide? Wouldn’t this mean that our readings would have more higher values than lower values, and hence our average would be skewed to a higher value? Or vice versa, and thuse skewed to a lower value. And I would imagine that such an error would accumulate over time.

    Is this an actual effect, and if so, has it been accounted for? or do I simply not understand statistical mechanisms.

  24. #24 Richard Simons
    January 8, 2013

    BfPM:

    unsubstantiated claims as Richard Simons did when he said, “you’re wrong but I can’t be bothered looking at the figures” or Lotharsson who says “hey sea level did rise so it must have contributed at the max possible averaged value”

    You owe us apologies for lying and not even attempting to accurately represent what we wrote. Why are people who dispute climate change and its effects so frequently dishonest?

    But I *can* get a mean height for that tide which sets a lower bound on my comparison range, and I *can* get the predicted height of that tide in 2012.

    Why are you comparing a specific high tide in 2012 with a mean high tide in an earlier decade? If you are serious about the question (which sounds rather weird to me) you should determine where in the range of predicted high tides the one you are interested in falls (e.g. at the 20th percentile) then compare it with the height of the 20th percentile tide in the 1960s or whenever it is that you are agonizing over. But frankly, I don’t understand why you can’t accept that the increase in high tide level would be very close to the change in mean sea level.

  25. #25 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    Ianam: “If you take away all the effects that work against complete global equilibrium of sea level (if that were even possible), then you get complete global equilibrium of sea level; duh — tautology. Does that imply that “water aggressively seeks equilibrium”? Uh, no, so … major logic fail. Might it be true nonetheless that “water aggressively seeks equilibrium”? No, for reasons already explained that the write-only sack of shit can’t be bothered to read or comprehend.”

    Don’t be dense. So, you agree we would have complete global equilibrium of sea level in that hypothetical? So, go one step further.

    IF one ocean were completely disconnected from another in this case, AND we added enough water to Ocean A such that it is now 100 metres higher than Ocean B, what would happen if we connected both by a canal deeper than the difference between the two. Let’s say a 200 metre deep canal when measured from the level of Ocean A.

    Simple question, no bullshit, just answer the question.

  26. #26 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    his frothing foaming incoherence

    Of course Dolt blames me for his own appalling stupidity and inability to comprehend … even when I’m frothing and foaming I’m coherent. But really it’s just a typical denier ad hominem sidestep to avoid addressing points.

    Why are people who dispute climate change and its effects so frequently dishonest?

    Because any honest person would have already made the correct inference from the evidence.

  27. #27 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2013

    I think it IS overly simplistic to just say that an averaged value is the actual value.

    Depends what you mean by “averaged value”.

    If you mean “change in average sea level taken over a sufficiently long period at a single location in order to measure sea level at that location”, then the averaged value is measuring what scientists call “sea level” at that location.

    Your entire schtick on this thread has been one long disingenuous and futile attempt to avoid that fact.

    …Lotharsson who says “hey sea level did rise so it must have contributed at the max possible averaged value”

    I fail to recall writing those words. Given that you misunderstand things at least half as often as the spectacularly misunderstanding chameleon, how about you be honest and find and accurately quote what you are responding to.

    Even more honest would be to go through my actual argument and point out where you disagree and why, instead of dismissing it as “waffle”.

    To properly assess how much the tide of the day was affected by SLR would require that we know how high the same tide was at some distance in the past.

    No.

    Not even when you ignore all of the previous explanations why not and repeat it for the twentieth time.

    The scientific definition of sea level refutes your claim about “proper assessment” because that definition implies what are and are not “proper assessments” of sea level rise.

    After all of this time you are either too stupid or recalcitrant to accept this fact – and even more stupidly, you seem to hope that your procedure will get a different but more valid answer.

    But even if we set aside the fallacious presumption in that claim, as demonstrated much earlier (but dismissed by you as “waffle”) you don’t have a clue how to find “the same tide some time in the past” because you seem to be oblivious to many of the factors that affect tide height. You would need to understand them all in order to find a suitable “corresponding tide” in the past – and even then you’d have a whole swathe of measurement uncertainties piling up instead of the far smaller uncertainty associated with actually measuring sea level at that locale.

    How about you simply address the actual example and question?

    ROFLMAO!

    You truly are either clueless or deeply dishonest. You previously dismiss comments addressing your actual claims as “waffle”, and then come back and reiterate your claims and demand that they be addressed. That’s another form of jerkhood – but unlike ianam it is deeply dishonest.

    Tell me why not.

    Apart from the reasons which you dismissed as “waffle”, because you’re apparently comparing two different quantities. Not only are they different metrics, one is apparently a prediction and one is a measurement. You cannot directly compare them.

  28. #28 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    Simple question, no bullshit, just answer the question.

    I’ve already told you, asshole, that I won’t answer your pointless questions until you’ve addressed the points, questions, and thought experiments in my previous posts addressed to you. That’s what’s known as fair.

  29. #29 bill
    January 8, 2013

    Oh, for God’s sake! What, you mean all the people who have ever studied this for a living never thought of all that? Jeebus. Extraordinary claim: extraordinary evidence beyond ‘if we take my inexpert and not-overly-plausible assumption for granted, then…’ please.

    And now you’re really trying to argue the oceans haven’t risen again! This is getting like Achilles and the Tortoise – the point is we know the oceans are rising.

    Please go take this up with Tamino. Seriously. I don’t know what David Benson’s qualifications are, but I do think that Grant Foster would be an expert in the field of statistics you really could take this up with. My prediction is that you won’t. Surprise me.

  30. #30 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    I won’t answer your pointless questions

    And, of course, I’ve already answered it. I’ve given the answer Dolt wants. So why does he ask again? I explained that above … because the stupid arrogant sack of shit can’t imagine that the answer he wants doesn’t lead where he wants it to. I’ve already explained why, but the stupid arrogant sack of shit can’t be bothered to follow anyone else’s argument but his own.

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2013

    So, you agree we would have complete global equilibrium of sea level in that hypothetical?

    The one where the earth doesn’t rotate and hasn’t done for a very very very long time, the earth doesn’t orbit the sun, there is no moon, there has been no continental plate movement or changes for a very very very long time, the geographical heat being emitted from the crust has been absolutely constant for a very very very long time, there is no life in the ocean, etc., That one?

    Well, it depends what you mean by “equilibrium”.

    If the sun shines on one side of the earth and not the other with enough energy to keep the earth warm enough that there’s no surface ice anywhere, there will be a large temperature difference which will affect the distribution of water. One side will have higher sea levels with respect to the geoid than the other – and there will STILL be currents driven by temperature and height differentials – and on a sphere these cannot be purely smooth so the water surface will not be smooth either. One might be tempted to call this equilibrium, depending on one’s definition, but I take it that’s not what you meant ;-)

    If you simplify your thought experiment enough you’ll get the answer you are seeking from everyone else. You need a planet that’s warm enough not to form sea ice, but is also experiencing no change in any forces (that matter for the purposes of water behaviour) for a very very very long time. (Never mind that this is almost certainly impossible. The “warm enough” criterion generally requires some ongoing non-static process that MUST CHANGE over time.) However, hypothetically speaking, if you had such a beast then once everything settled down the water would become much like SD’s mental model of earth – it would follow the geoid.

    But then you have to remember that the simplified thought experiment is not physically possible – and certainly a lot different from Earth – so you can’t draw conclusions about Earth behaviour from it.

  32. #32 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    Bill: “Oh, for God’s sake! What, you mean all the people who have ever studied this for a living never thought of all that? Jeebus. Extraordinary claim: extraordinary evidence beyond ‘if we take my inexpert and not-overly-plausible assumption for granted, then…’ please.”

    No, I’m not making any claims. I am just genuinely curious. If what I suggested DID happen, it could mean that gauges under record SLR as much as they might over record it, so it might not necessarily be in my sceptical favour.

    As I know little about tides, gauges and statistics, it is most likely that my thoughts are quite ignorant. I was just wondering if anyone can show that this possibility has been considered and discounted.

  33. #33 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    Don’t be dense. So,

    Reveal. When people who aren’t Dolts say “don’t be dense”, they follow it by pointing out the obvious thing that someone is being dense about. But not Dolt; oh no … he just puts that out there to wave something not dense at all away because … he is dense and dishonest. Here is what I wrote:

    If you take away all the effects that work against complete global equilibrium of sea level (if that were even possible), then you get complete global equilibrium of sea level; duh — tautology. Does that imply that “water aggressively seeks equilibrium”? Uh, no, so … major logic fail. Might it be true nonetheless that “water aggressively seeks equilibrium”? No, for reasons already explained that the write-only sack of shit can’t be bothered to read or comprehend.

    There is nothing dense about that. But the Dolt doesn’t even know what I’m arguing there because, as I said, he can’t be bothered to read what I previously wrote. Instead he plays this stupid immature game of “answer this simple question” when it’s a question that I already answered in the context of his previous thought experiment and I gave exactly the response he wants. But because the Dolt is so dense, he can’t comprehend why that doesn’t get him where he wants to go … even though I just explained it in the bit that he waves away as being dense.

    Loth thinks I’m a different kind of jerk … but why? Why am I a jerk to have the contempt for people like Dolt that I do? Even Loth has totally lost his patience for someone like Chammy.

  34. #34 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    if you had such a beast then once everything settled down the water would become much like SD’s mental model of earth – it would follow the geoid

    But it still wouldn’t imply that “water aggressively seeks equilibrium”, which is the argument that the Dolt is trying to make. So his “So, you agree” is just incredibly effing stupid, a total D-K retard thinking that he has won some precious concession when in fact it gets him nowhere.

  35. #35 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2013

    But it still wouldn’t imply that “water aggressively seeks equilibrium”, which is the argument that the Dolt is trying to make.

    Oh, yes, I agree.

    There’s no “seeking” going on.

    There’s no “aggression”. That requires intent. Even if you were to argue that “aggression” means “rapidly reaches”, THAT is terribly inaccurate on a body the size of the Earth – and it requires such a static set of forces that the endpoint would not be a geoid-level ocean but an approximately geoid-level ice covered planet.

    Heck, even “equilibrium” is arguably not a very good descriptor for the state they are trying to describe.

    The whole mental model revealed by that phrase is very poor physics, and easily leads people who aren’t thinking very well to erroneous conclusions.

  36. #36 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    And here’s the amazing thing about this Dolt. After getting agreement to his stupid strawman that “we would have complete global equilibrium of sea level in that hypothetical”, he wants to go “one step further”. How incredibly retarded! Sure, if we dig a canal between two bodies of water at different altitudes and ignore all real world factors then the water will flow from the higher to the lower for reasons that I explained at length when discussing his two columns of water — there are unbalanced forces; it’s physics .01. But it’s not that “water aggressively seeks equilibrium” — that is stupid and wrong for reasons that I’ve explained. Will the water reach equilibrium? Well, eventually … but it will take a very long time, as Wow noted, unless one hypothesizes away so many real world factors that the water no longer deserves to be called water because it has completely different properties. But even then the equilibrium won’t be because the water “aggressively seeks” it … that’s just a stupid and wrong conception, and no amount of Doltish questions can get one there.

  37. #37 Vince Whirlwind
    January 8, 2013

    “Yes, but that 100 metres is the result of currents etc I would have thought? Absent those effects?”

    No, it is largely the result of gravitational anomalies.

    Gravity varies from place to place depending on the composition of the underlying rock.

    Anyway, you’ve provided ample admission of your ignorance in these areas, so these floundering questions of yours would be best addressed by personal study.
    It is not possible to address a lack of familiarity with Geology 101 through a succession of blog post comments wherein the purported seeker of knowledge constantly skates from topic to topic without ever seemingly ingesting any of the information it is provided with.

    Come back when you’re ready.

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2013

    Loth thinks I’m a different kind of jerk … but why?

    I’m pointing out that there are two different reasons (apparently being conflated here by BFPM in order to allege a false equivalence) for calling someone a jerk.

    The first is failing to maintain strict verbal decorum, even under extreme provocation. That’s what BFPM is applying to you. And doing so is usually a form of tone trolling.

    The second is misrepresenting or outright lying about what people said, lying or being disingenuous about the evidence, refusing to debate in good faith e.g. by ignoring people’s arguments and rebuttals and then demanding they (re-)address your umpteenth repetition of the claim, and all of the other forms on that flowchart I linked to.

    They’re not the same thing at all, no matter how many times people try to conflate them. You’ll see some rabble-raising politicians – almost invariably on the “right” the last couple of decades – trying to play this game. They’ll make the most outrageous accusations or violations of logic in a calm and unemotional manner, but the minute there’s any emotion during a response pointing out they are completely full of shit they will play the tone troll card and start calling for “civility”.And THAT is another example of the second kind of dishonest jerkhood.

  39. #39 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    Even if you were to argue that “aggression” means “rapidly reaches” …

    The whole conception is broken because how fast “equilibrium” is reached is a matter of the entire contingent interplay of forces. Both “aggressive” and “rapidly” are relative terms, but to what? Even with small contained columns of water, a less viscous fluid would flow more quickly. So sure, water is “aggressive” relative to molasses or lava.

    Heck, even “equilibrium” is arguably not a very good descriptor for the state they are trying to describe.

    I understand … I just use it as a concession to their terminology, but I did note a few times that it’s the level that reaches “equilibrium”, meaning that it’s the same everywhere … it’s meaningless to talk about water “seeking” equilibrium, like some yoga student.

  40. #40 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    I’m pointing out that there are two different reasons (apparently being conflated here by BFPM in order to allege a false equivalence) for calling someone a jerk.

    The first is failing to maintain strict verbal decorum, even under extreme provocation.

    Ok got it … but isn’t being a jerk in my book. I’m a jerk when I start trading pointless insults with someone (like Wow) just to try to one-up him … but I’m genuinely angry at people like Dolt and Chammy and what their sort is doing to human civilization.

  41. #41 Vince Whirlwind
    January 8, 2013

    There is no such thing as “equilibrium” in a system that is constantly subject to varying forces.

    The sea sloshes around under the influence of a large number of forces all explainable by the laws physics.

    Bolt-fans as a rule almost instantly betray their ignorance of physics.

    There is no point arguing with the Bolt-fan beyond stating the bald facts of which it is so plainly unaware.

    It is a mystery what pleasure it is that these retards gain from exposing here their ignorance, but it isn’t particularly amusing.

  42. #42 Vince Whirlwind
    January 8, 2013

    In fact, it occurs to me that Bolt-fan’s simplistic incomprehension of sea levels mirrors the “CO2 is heavy, so it stays near the surface” nonsense you regularly find posted on its favourite blog-sites.

    They’re just idiots.

  43. #43 Vince Whirlwind
    January 8, 2013

    Hey, can we further blow Bolt-fan’s meagre brains by mentioning earth-tides and their effect on the measurement of sea level?

    LOL.

  44. #44 Neil White
    January 8, 2013

    BfPM:

    “Is the statistical averaging taking into account any skewing caused by actual tidal irregularity?”

    Monthly averages, as normally used by (e.g.) the PSMSL and NOAA are just that – calendar-monthly ‘bucket’ or ‘boxcar’ averages. Because a month is a large number of complete cycles (the main constituent in most places has a period of 12.4 hours) this is OK. Where people have compared these averages with averages of highs and lows over a month they agree within the noise.

    “If tides rose and fell by precisely the same amount at precisely the same intervals, and high/low tide was held for only so long as any other point in the cycle, then regular readings would indeed give us a reasonable average.”

    The rise and fall is dictated mostly by astronomical forcing (that pesky gravity again). The rise/fall is fastest near the mean value, and there is a period of ‘slack water’ at each extreme.The pattern changes with time beause of the many sinusoids of different amplitude, phase and frequency that are added.You will see this if you go poking around in the NOAA web site and look at some tidal predictions over periods of a few months.

    “But, what if the rate of rise/fall was slower near high tide than near low tide, or high tide as a value was held for longer than low tide? Wouldn’t this mean that our readings would have more higher values than lower values, and hence our average would be skewed to a higher value? Or vice versa, and thuse skewed to a lower value. And I would imagine that such an error would accumulate over time. ”

    See above comments.

    “Is this an actual effect, and if so, has it been accounted for? or do I simply not understand statistical mechanisms.”

    What do you mean by statistical mechanisms? Most of us here are talking about physics.

    As you said somewhere else, you don’t understand tides very much. I responded to your (or was it someone else’s – apologies if I’ve got this wrong, but I can’t be bothered chasing back) much earlier comment on this (the one with the link to two graphs), but I don’t think you understood the answer. As another commenter said a few posts back, it is wrong to compare tidal predictions for a few days then and a few days now because of the large variability in tidal ranges and signals through the various tidal cycles – most obviously the fortnightly spring/neap cycle.

    Way back then you had the answer in front of you – you need to look at the residuals after removing the tidal predictions from the observed heights. Again, this was pointed out at the time.

    On a related subject, I think the the main objection is to the use of the term ‘aggressively’ – the ocean is part of a complex coupled system with forcings on many different time scales. Unfortunately the ‘aggressively yada yada yada’ stuff has been used to justify (in one person’s mind) completely erroneous ideas about how this all works, anf to justify using one source of information and ignore the many others that disagree with it.

    While we’re on this subject, can you tell us what the BPT (Billiard Table Principle) is? I’m not asking you to explain it, or justify it, just tell us what the hell it is. I’m afraid Spangly just pulled this one out of the air (or somewhere else). He was unable/unwilling to explain it.

  45. #45 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    There is no such thing as “equilibrium” in a system that is constantly subject to varying forces.

    Right, but Loth and I tried to play along a bit by agreeing to eliminate all those forces for the sake of Dolt’s “hypothetical”. As Loth noted,

    the simplified thought experiment is not physically possible – and certainly a lot different from Earth – so you can’t draw conclusions about Earth behaviour from it.

  46. #46 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    think the the main objection is to the use of the term ‘aggressively’

    And “seek”. The distribution of water cannot properly be accounted for in such teleological terms that invert causation. Each molecule of water is acted upon by a multiplicity of forces, and the consequences can be theoretically calculated per LaPlace. In the conception of SD, Chammy, and Dolt, if the oceans are heated causing them to rise in places, those higher water molecules will try to get to his river to even things out, and the fact that they didn’t supposedly shows that the oceans didn’t rise.

  47. #47 bill
    January 8, 2013

    BFPM, ‘honest seeker after truth’, won’t go to Tamino’s where he’d be in reasonable danger of finding it.

    As I know little about tides, gauges and statistics, it is most likely that my thoughts are quite ignorant.

    Seems the most reasonable working assumption you’ve given us to date.

    Also, Ianam is right; what you are demanding is a tautology. “Leave aside all the myriad factors that stop the oceans ‘aggressively seeking’ anything like a platonic equilibrium, then you must concede they’d ‘aggressively seek’ and attain a platonic equilibrium.” Gibberish!

    And utterly pointless! That is not the planet we live on, so we arrive at the counter-tautology that if we discount a sufficient number of the factors that make this the planet we live on then the result is something that does not resemble this planet. From which we can learn: see previous sentence. Rinse and repeat.

    It’s a kind of doofus Zen…

    And you know, dear, we have this wonderful thing we call Google that was developed so that we could learn things for ourselves rather than playing at cuckoos and demanding loudly to be fed. Tide gauges now take their measurements every 6 minutes. Who’d a thunk it? How could you ever hope to get a reasonable average out of that kind of data?

    And, wow, there’s even a Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level. My, that’s quite a collection of answers to FAQs! (Though they admittedly don’t seem to have the one that goes ‘have you ever considered that you don’t know what you’re doing? Perhaps you should contact them?) And links to even more answers! Joy!

    Not much excuse for ongoing ignorance, then. Have at it!

    Guess what they think the oceans are doing, incidentally?

  48. #48 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2013

    Both “aggressive” and “rapidly” are relative terms, but to what?

    Exactly. That’s why I was trying to get chameleon to think about how one would use the broken concept of “aggressively seeking equilibrium” to calculate a number of the kind that SD was implying.

  49. #49 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2013

    …can you tell us what the BPT (Billiard Table Principle) is?

    Do tell, BFPM. Inquiring minds want to know.

  50. #50 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    I wish I could put more time into the discussion/argument, because to be honest it’s all good stuff. I don’t like the crap that people like Wow and Ianam go on with, but at the same time I am thick skinned enough that you couldn’t insult me no matter how hard you try. But believe me, on the forums I moderate you’d be gone.

    As far as aggressive equilibrium etc goes, I don’t know what to say. The concepts being expressed appear perfectly clear to me, but the various commenters like lotharsson and Bernard etc seem to want to twist the meaning by pretending that looseness of vocabulary implies looseness of thought.

    I may not know the physics etc well enough, but I can certainly follow an argument and work stuff out well enough to get by.

    The concept of aggressive equilibrium is clear. The terminology may be wrong. As for the BTP or whatever it is, i can’t help as I don’t quite see what that means.

    As far as SD’s actual claims go, I have sympathy for the idea. From everything I have so far read, it seems pretty clear that SLR is occurring. Perhaps not as significantly on the SE Qld coast as elsewhere, which, along with other factors raised, probably explains SD’s observations. However, I still am of the opinion that if you have an accelerating SLR, it must become apparent in local conditions.

    The example of Sandy has been used to suggest that effect, but my calculations above I think stand up. I would like to tackle Neil White’s comments above but I can’t due to insufficient free time.

    Vince Whirlwind, you say: — “Yes, but that 100 metres is the result of currents etc I would have thought? Absent those effects?”

    No, it is largely the result of gravitational anomalies.” —

    But isn’t the effect of gravity across the geoid less than that? This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ocean_dynamic_topography.jpg seems to imply a total topographic range of just a few metres. Apologies if I completely misunderstand what this depicts.

  51. #51 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    OK… not sure how to correlate the two wiki facts. the above, and this:

    “The geoid surface is irregular, unlike the reference ellipsoid which is a mathematical idealized representation of the physical Earth, but considerably smoother than Earth’s physical surface. Although the physical Earth has excursions of +8,000 m (Mount Everest) and −11,000 m (Mariana Trench), the geoid’s total variation is less than 200 m (−106 to +85 m)[2] compared to a perfect mathematical ellipsoid.
    If the ocean surface were isopycnic (of constant density) and undisturbed by tides, currents, or weather, it would closely approximate the geoid. If the continental land masses were criss-crossed by a series of tunnels or canals, the sea level in these canals would also very nearly coincide with the geoid. In reality the geoid does not have a physical meaning under the continents, but geodesists are able to derive the heights of continental points above this imaginary, yet physically defined, surface by a technique called spirit leveling.”

    But I guess that means that in my hypothetical, the actual sea surface would still vary considerably. So regardless of ‘equilibrium’, we might have differing levels at different places.

  52. #52 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    I don’t like the crap that people like Wow and Ianam go on with, but at the same time I am thick skinned enough that you couldn’t insult me no matter how hard you try. But believe me, on the forums I moderate you’d be gone.

    The problem is that you haven’t addressed any of my substance, you wanking tone trolling dishonest asshole … so actually you’re an incredibly thin-skinned coward. On a forum I moderated, you would be gone not because you said unpleasant words because you’re the sort of ethically corrupt dishonest jerk that Loth described.

  53. #53 bill
    January 8, 2013

    So, ianam, tell us what you really think.

  54. #54 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    Bill, you say: “And you know, dear, we have this wonderful thing we call Google that was developed so that we could learn things for ourselves rather than playing at cuckoos and demanding loudly to be fed. Tide gauges now take their measurements every 6 minutes. Who’d a thunk it? How could you ever hope to get a reasonable average out of that kind of data?”

    I was not suggesting that the number of measurements were insufficient. I just posed a thought. If there were some imbalance in the tidal cycles but the measurements are regular, it stands to reason that you could get more measurements towards one extreme than the other.

  55. #55 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    hehehe… Ianam you are frothing again. C’mon now, you can do better than that. Try harder, I’ll try to stop laughing long enough to read it.

  56. #56 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    As far as aggressive equilibrium etc goes, I don’t know what to say.

    What you could say is what you think is wrong with all the objections posted about it, but you can’t be bothered to even read them.

    The concepts being expressed appear perfectly clear to me

    Then what are they? Water is not aggressive nor does it seek anything, so what is being said? Or, if what is being said is just that literally, that water aggressively seeks equilibrium, then it is false.

    the various commenters like lotharsson and Bernard etc seem to want to twist the meaning by pretending that looseness of vocabulary implies looseness of thought.

    You are the one twisting things, clearly, because they aren’t pretending anything. Water is acted on by forces; it doesn’t “seek” anything and there is nothing “aggressive” about the flowing of fluids. There is a proper way to conceptualize these things in physical terms so indeed this is “looseness” … and error of thought. That you can’t grasp this is your problem … it does not mean that someone else is “twisting” something.

    The concept of aggressive equilibrium is clear.

    Then what is it?? Explain what it means, not just by repeating the same words. And explain it in terms of physical processes … if you can’t, then it is wrong, regardless of how “clear” it may be.

    The terminology may be wrong.

    The concept is wrong because it is at odds with physical reality. Forces act on water; water does not “seek” anything. Sometimes people say “water finds its own level” but that’s a consequence of physical law (under ideal conditions), it’s not a principle from which one can derive something like global sea level equivalence.

    But I guess that means that in my hypothetical, the actual sea surface would still vary considerably. So regardless of ‘equilibrium’, we might have differing levels at different places.

    Then it’s certainly true of the real Earth. Sheesh.

  57. #57 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    So summing up, Bolt and cham here are in furious agreement that SD’s idiotic statements are, indeed rubbish.

    Gravity is not the only force that affects the ocean levels and therefore there will be variation at locations of the local mean sea level.

    This, they agree means that the mean sea level can be different at different places, making his local RIVER LEVEL records moot in the discussion about GLOBAL mean sea level trends.

    If either you two clowns think this is wrong, then explain.

  58. #58 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    hehehe… Ianam you are frothing again. C’mon now, you can do better than that. Try harder, I’ll try to stop laughing long enough to read it.

    While I have addressed all of your claims, you have still not addressed any of my substance. You can do better. Why shouldn’t I froth at such a patently dishonest asshole like you?

  59. #59 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2013

    However, I still am of the opinion that if you have an accelerating SLR, it must become apparent in local conditions.

    So, when someone pointed you to measurements that showed some areas’ sea levels falling a bit over almost two decades, it never occurred to you that your belief that “it must become apparent in local conditions” may need some more refinement before you can use it to try and draw inferences? Perhaps “it must eventually become apparent…”, where eventually may be “certainly longer than 20 years, but you haven’t checked exactly how long before must become applies”?

    And if that (ahem) sinks in, then reconsider where it leaves your sympathy for SD’s idea.

  60. #60 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2013

    I just posed a thought. If there were some imbalance in the tidal cycles but the measurements are regular, it stands to reason that you could get more measurements towards one extreme than the other.

    It’s not a bad question.

    But the question in response is “what property would the shape of the cyclic water level measurement curves have to have for that to occur?” Followed by: “is there any evidence that the shape of water level cycles have this property?”

    Or even better: “How should measurements be taken in order to rule out the possibility of the kind of biases you are hypothesising?” and “Do scientists do this?”

  61. #61 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    “If I understand matters aright, without wind and currents the sea level would be at the geoid.”

    Nope.

    You’d need to stop the world spinning. Flatten the sea floor. Have the ocean at thermal equilibrium (which means either turning off the sun or surrounding us with suns). Stop evaporation and precipitation. Stop river flows. Remove the moon. Then wait a few weeks.

    And THEN it would be at the geoid.

  62. #62 bill
    January 8, 2013

    ‘I feel a great imbalance in the Force’

    Seriously – what would this mysterious ‘imbalance in tidal cycles’ be – and I can recommend Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy on this one – given that it’s the moon and the sun and the earth and their well-understood elliptical orbits, and all repeated overandoverandover, and all that?

    Well, the moon retreats all of 4cm a year, I suppose… And if you were only sampling every 6 minutes…

    I also make no claims to know much about it all. Funnily enough, this hasn’t led me to conclude that the people who’ve devoted their lives to it probably can’t figure it all out…

  63. #63 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    I still am of the opinion that if you have an accelerating SLR, it must become apparent in local conditions.

    Why should anyone care about your uninformed opinion that is counter to all the logic- and evidence-based arguments here? You have your opinion and you’re going to stick to it … which makes you a Dolt.

    Or maybe you’re saying that SD is a liar and that his river levels haven’t really receded. Because the facts about SLR are established.

  64. #64 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    Bill, “Seriously – what would this mysterious ‘imbalance in tidal cycles’ be – and I can recommend Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy on this one – given that it’s the moon and the sun and the earth and their well-understood elliptical orbits, and all repeated overandoverandover, and all that?”

    I don’t know, I just innocently asked a question. What I was driving at is not that tides don’t act according to physical forces, it was more that does the process of regular measurement introduce a systemic error? Here’s what I mean, really simplified.

    Tidal range from 1 metre to 5 metres. 10 measurements.

    1,2,3,4,5,5,4,3,2,1 Average is 3
    1,2,4,4,5,5,4,3,2,1 Average is 3.1

  65. #65 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    “think the the main objection is to the use of the term ‘aggressively’”

    Also “LEVEL!!!!”.

    Why do they think that there’s only one sea level therefore it’s all level?

    Because they don’t even know what english is.

    And for all his whining about “Answer my question” and other assorted bullshit, he’s done a good track at avoiding the fact that on the same river the river LEVEL is very different along its length with respect to the geoid.

    Maybe it’s not called river level because it isn’t level?

  66. #66 bill
    January 8, 2013

    PS to Wow – and we’d be dead, assuming the world was stopped instantly, with the unhappy folks at the equator having been hurled about 11km into space before whatever’s left falls back to Earth.

    Then we end up with 1 bloody great northern ocean, and 1 southern ditto, with a bloody-great inhospitable land-mass in-between. So even then I strongly suspect the two seas would be at different levels… They certainly wouldn’t ‘seek’ each other out.

    The ocean equatorial bulge is 8km high. That’s a mind-numbing amount of water…

  67. #67 bill
    January 8, 2013

    That’s a PS to Wow here, incidentally.

  68. #68 Neil White
    January 8, 2013

    BfPM

    “The concept of aggressive equilibrium is clear.”

    It’s not clear to me. Please explain it.

    “The terminology may be wrong.”

    OK – clarify it then.

    “As for the BTP or whatever it is, i can’t help as I don’t quite see what that means.”

    Neither do we – but this is one of Spangly’s gems, and you seem to be supporting him, so I though you might be able to tell us what it is. Again, please note, I’m not asking for an explanation or a proof, just tell us what it is.

  69. #69 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    “The concept of aggressive equilibrium is clear.”

    So write in a single post starting with “the concept of aggressive equilibrium is…” and containing ONLY that concept rather than your usual empty calorie posts.

  70. #70 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    “I don’t know, I just innocently asked a question”

    Why have you asked these questions?

  71. #71 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    “What I was driving at is not that tides don’t act according to physical forces, it was more that does the process of regular measurement introduce a systemic error?”

    No it doesn’t.

  72. #72 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    Bolt and cham here are in furious agreement that SD’s idiotic statements are, indeed rubbish.

    Gravity is not the only force that affects the ocean levels and therefore there will be variation at locations of the local mean sea level.

    This, they agree means that the mean sea level can be different at different places, making his local RIVER LEVEL records moot in the discussion about GLOBAL mean sea level trends.

    I note that neither have managed to say that this is incorrect.

  73. #73 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    And for all his whining about “Answer my question” and other assorted bullshit

    That whining is from Dolt for PM. The idiocy about “that’s what it’s called sea LEVEL” was from Spangled Dunce (posted at Jennifer’s). These trolls do have a lot of similarities, but they aren’t quite interchangeable.

  74. #74 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    No, it was promulgated on here too. You’d need to go back a few pages to see it being done here.

    It seems the idiots try their comedy act at a safer venue surrounded by a determinedly partisan crowd before trying it out in the real world.

    This probably makes them think they have it right, since everyone there is fawning over how brilliant that piece of idiocy (whatever it might be: there’s almost no chance of it being anything other than idiotic) is.

  75. #75 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    I had forgotten that the earth’s crust would respond to the changed mass of water too, so you’d have to wait thousands of years. Which means you’d have to take into account continental drift too, so you’d ALSO have to stop plate tectonics.

    And volcanoes.

    And magma flows.

  76. #76 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    Neil White. Aggressive equilibrium. I’ll have a go at explaining it as I understand it. Let’s take the Pacific Ocean. Generally speaking, if there were no tides or currents or atmosphere, then the sea surface height would approximate the geoid.

    So, it would be ‘level’ as far as it can be in the presence of the earth’s gravitational field. If I added an extra 25% of volume at the far eastern edge, the sea surface height would increase locally. But over time, the sea would ‘level’ out to approximate the geoid, and the overall sea surface height would again exhibit a relative levelness. or to express it another way, the anomaly from the geoid would reduce back to a low threshold.

    In the real world, there are myriad other forces acting. But, given enough time, any increase in volume should spread largely equally across the surface. So you’d still see various local effects from currents etc, but the sea surface height would exhibit the same relative anomaly to the geoid.

    By extension then, one should see SLR exhibited at all locations, given enough time. How much time I don’t know. Aggressive I think simply means that the time taken would not be long, geologically speaking. Would it be decadal? I think SD would say yes.

    Billiard Table Principle. I think SD argues that as the anomaly from the geoid is less than 3 metres over the whole body, the actual degree of anomaly is very low. In other words, sea surface height is very ‘level’ relative to the anomaly. And thus, the sea surface’s natural ‘state’ is to be level.

  77. #77 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    Going back to my earlier comment about regular measurement over tidal cycles, here’s a representative list of times between peaks/troughs for The Battery over a few days:

    5:12
    6:24
    7:00
    6:12
    5:30
    6:06
    7:12
    6:00
    6:06
    5:36

    You can see that regular 6 minute measurements means we would have more measurements in a 7 hour part cycle than there are in a 6 hour 12 minute part cycle.

    So, right there it looked to me like we have something that skews the calculation of a mean. But perhaps over time these all average out. It was just a thought. It hurt at the time and luckily I’m back to my vacuous norm…

  78. #78 bill
    January 8, 2013

    But perhaps over time these all average out.

    Perhaps they do! Please identify the factors creating any enduring trend in tidal cycles, bearing in mind that you’ll have to explain its impact globally, petal. I’ve offered you ‘the moon is retreating at 4cm a year’, but I doubt that ‘s going to do much for you, frankly…

    The universe is also expanding, I suppose, but given that even an object as large and as close as Jupiter’s gravitational tug on us is about 1/20,000th of the moon’s (IIRC) I doubt that all thos retreating objects are going to do much for you, either.

    (If anyone you know is into astrology to might want to point out to them that the microwave in their kitchen is exerting considerably more force on them than any distant star. This could lead to a rather more interesting array of signs; ‘Oh, I’m a Toaster Oven with a moon in Crockpot…)

    Anyway, pet, where were we? Ah, yes, now all you have to do is demonstrate that no-one else has thought of whatever trend factors you identify or taken them into account. I shall have a lump in my throat as you step onto the Nobel dias, I really shall…

    PS: ‘Aggressively seeking equilibrium'; no, still gibberish, I’m afraid.

  79. #79 Vince Whirlwind
    January 8, 2013

    ” In the real world, […] given enough time, any increase in volume should spread largely equally across the surface,”

    This is rubbish. Completely unwarranted assumption. If this is what you’ve been driving at for this long, then it’s a shame to have taken you this long and still not realise why this is obviously wrong.

  80. #80 Bolt for PM
    January 8, 2013

    Bill, sweetie (do you mind if I call you sweetie?), anyway dollface, I did NOT claim any position and hence do not need to identify any factors or explain any impacts. Sweetpea, all I posed was a question, which to be perfectly honest sexybum, you’ve failed to respond to.

    Can you point me to a single reference that explains how multiple regular measurements across varying cycles is accounted for, because, softlips me old china, every site I go to just talks about taking regular measurements of sea level and drawing an average from that. here is NOAA’s definition of MSL: “The arithmetic mean of hourly heights observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch.”

    In my example above, that particular definition would, over the few days I offered up, give me a skewed result. So my little darling, where is something more referential than your own learned opinion?

    OK Vince WillyWilly. Thought experiment. Sea level of Pacific Ocean is X. Add 25% volume. Wait 100 years. All things remaining equal, would you expect the sea level at any coastline around the Pacific to be the same, higher, or lower relative to its level before we added the extra water? If higher or lower, would the relative difference from the previous local sea level be largely similar, or quite different?

  81. #81 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    “No, it was promulgated on here too. You’d need to go back a few pages to see it being done here.”

    It was done here because quoted SD. Go back and check.

  82. #82 Vince Whirlwind
    January 8, 2013

    Just in case you’re having trouble:

    – Get one end of a 1m hollow tube filled with 1kg of gas and blocked off at the remote end
    – Swing round and around reasonably quickly.
    – Add 1kg of air and continue spinning
    – Do you predict that 100g will be added to the furthest 10cm of the tube at the close end?

  83. #83 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    Sorry: It was done here because I quoted SD … along with the link to his comment at Jennifer’s.

  84. #84 Vince Whirlwind
    January 8, 2013

    Lightbulb moment yet, Bolt-fan?
    Or will the dimwittery persist?

  85. #85 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    But over time, the sea would ‘level’ out to approximate the geoid, and the overall sea surface height would again exhibit a relative levelness. or to express it another way, the anomaly from the geoid would reduce back to a low threshold.

    Oddly, there’s no aggressiveness or seeking in your description. Gee, maybe those aren’t actually the correct concepts.

  86. #86 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    Oops, there was a mention of “aggressive”:

    Aggressive I think simply means that the time taken would not be long, geologically speaking. Would it be decadal? I think SD would say yes.

    Which is plainly not “aggressive”, even by Loth’s charitable interpretation as “rapid”.

    But really, it’s not hard (for an intellectually honest person) to understand what SD means by aggressive: he means that water flows right away, as in your thought experiment with two columns of water separated by a seal. Too bad that this “aggressiveness” of water is not an attribute of water but is a naive interpretation placed on it … in the real world, water is acted on by forces and, in the ocean, no such “aggressive” consequences occur.

  87. #87 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2013

    BFPM, here’s a free hint.

    Condescension doesn’t work when you don’t know what you’re talking about and especially when the person you address it to does.

    Bonus free hint: why the heck do you think bill asked about enduring trends in tidal cycles?

    You might start by asking yourself what the definition of a cycle is. Once you get that far you might start to think about Neil’s point that tide levels are (largely) defined by the superimposition of a number of cycles of different periods. Then you might consider how long a period the scientists average over when measuring sea level – and why.

    And if you have a moment for self-reflection, you might ponder why you haven’t done any of this so far, despite being prompted several times already IIRC.

  88. #88 Vince Whirlwind
    January 8, 2013

    “Can you point me to a single reference that explains how multiple regular measurements across varying cycles is accounted for, because, softlips me old china, every site I go to….”

    It’s interesting that Bolt-fan’s ignorance of the subject is projected as a failing on the part of the relevant experts in the field.

    A few hints, maybe:
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/what-determines-x-intercept-ie-zero-crossing-or-base-year-gmsl-plots

  89. #89 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2013

    BFPM could even crack a basic textbook on sampling theory.

    Almost his entire schtick is predicated on one long argument from severe personal ignorance (and incompetence) – and projecting that on to people who have about 20 years of education before they can start doing their jobs, and once they start they generally have a whole bunch of very smart peers periodically reviewing their work.

  90. #90 Vince Whirlwind
    January 8, 2013

    What really galls me is the likes of Bolt-fan who spend 3 hours on some denier-blog in order to form their ideas, casting aspersions on clever people who work full-time on this stuff, and have done so for decades of their life.

    I know one guy who has spent the last 18 months working full-time on his PhD in a very narrow area related this subject.

    Idiots like Bolt-fan seem to believe that if something cannot be explained to them in 60 seconds, then that something must be wrong.

    Utterly clueless.

  91. #91 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    I just read someone writing on physicist Sean Carroll’s blog that no one understands gravity, and when Sean said he does and that he had written a book about it, the guy demanded that he explain it to him then and there.

  92. #92 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2013

    What’s particularly interesting is the reaction of people who (seem to frequently) think that maybe a whole load of highly educated and frequently peer-reviewed scientists have missed something so obvious that they themselves could come up with it in a few hours of “thinking”, when they themselves are subject the faintest blog-approximation of something a little bit like peer review.

    They protest like mad, throw in a whole bunch of additional fallacies and irrelevancies – and assert that the review isn’t just wrong, but is invalid.

    Wouldn’t last five minutes as a research scientist.

  93. #93 bill
    January 8, 2013

    ianam – yep that’s BFPM’s schtick in a nutshell.

    What really galls me is the likes of Bolt-fan who spend 3 hours on some denier-blog in order to form their ideas, casting aspersions on clever people who work full-time on this stuff

    Exactly.

    Look, soldier, run over to Tamino’s and tell him you’ve identified the fundamental flaw in the statistical method; i.e that no-one’s as smart as you.

    I know it’s a long way from your geriatric colonel blimp peers, and that there’s considerable danger of your being made to look a supreme ass (the likelihood of which is greatly increased because…), but if you actually had the courage of your convictions, and any real desire to learn, you’d do it.

    So you won’t.

    Thank you for the opportunity to humiliate you in a public forum by way of being an example, but you are becoming rather tedious now.

  94. #94 Bernard J.
    January 8, 2013

    As far as aggressive equilibrium etc goes, I don’t know what to say. The concepts being expressed appear perfectly clear to me, but the various commenters like lotharsson and Bernard etc seem to want to twist the meaning by pretending that looseness of vocabulary implies looseness of thought.

    Would that be the same “looseness of vocabulary” that you are now employing to imply that I’m significantly engaging in the equilibrium side-show? I’ve hardly mentioned it: my target is Drongo’s ridiculous claims in the face of a mountain of contradictory fact.

    However, if you want to accuse me now of assuming that any “that looseness of vocabulary implies looseness of thought” on your part, then go ahead, because I am definitely thinking it now.

    And I note that neither you nor Drongo has yet been able to demonstrate why the factors I repeatedly list do not invalidate Drongo’s silliness about rising global sea level.

  95. #95 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    “The concepts being expressed appear perfectly clear to me”

    Then you should be able to clearly express them to demonstrate what this aggressive seeking of level means.

    If you can’t then either you don’t understand them or you suck at explaining.

  96. #96 Bernard J.
    January 8, 2013

    Blot.

    Just to reiterate, I vehemently dispute your claim that I am involved in the “aggresive equilibrium” red herring of a conversation. If you think I’m an active participant please link to my posts that apparently reflect this, and compare them to the general body of commentary focussed in this distraction.

    I want to see just what my index of “meaning twisting” really is…

  97. #97 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    “Can you point me to a single reference that explains how multiple regular measurements across varying cycles is accounted for”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errors_and_residuals_in_statistics

  98. #98 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    “Aggressive I think simply means that the time taken would not be long, geologically speaking”

    So thousands or millions of years, then.

  99. #99 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    ” In the real world, […] given enough time, any increase in volume should spread largely equally across the surface,”

    So explain why the air pressure isn’t equal across the entire surface of the earth and point to ANY period when this was true.

  100. #100 Wow
    January 8, 2013

    “So, right there it looked to me like we have something that skews the calculation of a mean.”

    That’s because you want it to be there.

    Imagining something is what even the moron can manage with ease.

    Indeed the major difference between a moron and an intelligent human being here is that the moron will not change their mind about what they imagine.

Current ye@r *