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 Vince Whirlwind
    January 8, 2013

    I wonder – is air even more “aggressive” than water, seeing as it is more fluid?

    So perhaps, “aggressive” air-equilibrium-seeking will occur much faster than aggressive-water-equilibrium-seeking?

    Instead of being on “quick” “geologically-speaking” timescales, maybe it will occur on even quicker historical timescales, like maybe it would only take a few thousands of years for all barometer readings in the world to “equalise”?

    Fucking retard.

  2. #2 ianam
    January 8, 2013

    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

    Actually, I think I was over-generous to Stupid Dipshit there. The most natural interpretation of “water aggressively seeks equilibrium” is “water tries really hard to reach equilibrium”. Of course this has no correspondence with reality.

    Dolt for PM says that the concept is clear, and yet when asked to explain, he says he thinks it means … well, that water takes however long it takes to reach equilibrium.

    These cretins remind me of a clip from a Chris Matthews show where some Tea Party git was screaming “Obama is a communist!” so he walked over to her and asked her what a communist is. She laughed and said “Don’t you know what a communist is?” and he said he wanted her to tell him what she thought a communist is. She said “Everyone knows what a communist is!” and he asked her again to explain it in her own words. Over and over again, without her ever able to say anything about what being a communist was other than repeating the word. Finally she said “Obama hates America!”

    Dolt and Chammy and SD are just like her.

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    January 8, 2013

    Dolt and Chammy and SD are just like her.

    This thread has been going for … how long now? And none of them has been able to supply a definition for the important terms in their claims with enough precision that it can be tested.

    It’s really the prime gambit – deniability of counterfactuality through vagueness.

  4. #4 Vince Whirlwind
    January 8, 2013

    Vagueness is a natural consequence of ignorance.

    The Australian has a done a very good job of teaching these barbarians that Opinion trumps Fact.

  5. #5 David B. Benson
    January 9, 2013

    Bolt for PM — In the bad old precomputer days somebody had to go out to read the tide gauge. Possibly one can devise a maximum and a minimum indicator so that the overnight tides could be read in the daylight. Nowadays almost all tide gauges are fully automated; reading every 6 minutes is good enough for the 12.4 hour (nominal) tidal cycle.

    Wow & everybody else: The geoid takes into account the fact that Terra is rotating. It can be defined as the local departure from the reference ellipsoid to obtain a gravitational equipotential surface.

    At some locations the actual sea height anomaly, the height above or below the geoid in that location, exceeds 100 meters. That is not the same as the variations in elevation measured from the center of Terra.

  6. #6 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “Wow & everybody else: The geoid takes into account the fact that Terra is rotating.”

    It doesn’t. The coasts cause buildup because it is “leading” the ocean. The rock is constrained to exactly the speed of rotation of the earth at that time. The ocean is less rigid.

    It’s a very similar problem as trying to walk with a full cup and not spill any.

  7. #7 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    O course, that effect isn’t 100m!

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

    Wow — I stated that quite poorly. Pretend Terra is not rotating but the solid portions still retain the current shape. The liquid and gaseous portions then come to equilibrium. Now take the equipotential surface; that is the goid.

  9. #9 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    It’s hard to keep things well said when there’s so much dumb being dropped around.

    Until the clowns start defining things so that people outside their head can read what they’re thinking and work off that, keep things black and white.

    Rotating earth causes the oceans to be always lagging the earth’s rotation and the coasts turn that into a difference in sea levels at different places on the costs of the earth.

  10. #10 David B. Benson
    January 9, 2013

    Wow — I suppose, but the coriolis effect on ocean currents shoves water up onto western boundaries of oceans. I suppose that is the same.

    It is also the case that the rotation causes the oceans to be well above the geoid around the equator (up to 110+ meters) and well below in polar regions (-80 meters).

  11. #11 Vince Whirlwind
    January 9, 2013

    Gosh, you overcomplicate things. Spangly has a photo of a stone wall on the river near his house and that simple photo is all you need to know about sea level everywhere, as Bolt’s been trying to explain to us.

  12. #12 David B. Benson
    January 9, 2013

    In the harbor wall of the
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_of_Louisbourg
    (which was constructed mostly around 1730 CE) there is an iron ring intended to tie up small craft. A bit difficult to do that now as the combination of isostactic adjustment and SLR places the ring oft under the water.

  13. #13 Bolt for PM
    January 9, 2013

    David Benson: “It is also the case that the rotation causes the oceans to be well above the geoid around the equator (up to 110+ meters) and well below in polar regions (-80 meters).”

    Can you point me to a reference for this? I am not claiming this is in error, but from what I read, the general departure from the geoid is less than 2 metres. The geoid itself varies over that 200 metres, but sea surface height pretty closely matches that, even with currents etc.

  14. #14 Bolt for PM
    January 9, 2013

    PS, to avoid any unnecessary flaming, I am NOT claiming anything nor pretending I know better. It’s just that what David states is contrary to what I have found in reading about sea surface height and geoid, so I need clarification. There must be an extra dimension to this beyond what I have read.

  15. #15 Neil White
    January 9, 2013

    This whole thing about the geoid is a red herring. Spangly brought it in to make it look like he knew what he was talking about by pulling in some techy sounding stuff.

    For the purpose of this discussion it is irrelevant. We’re talking about (or, at least, trying to talk about) sea level CHANGE. For that it doesn’t matter what reference you use, as long as it is stable. You could use the centre of the Earth, an ellipsoid (e.g. WGS84) or a series of local benchmarks whose vertical position is measured by GPS.

    This is confusing because different communites (Geophysics, Geodesy and GIA) use slightly different definitions (the differences being mainly in how much stuff (e.g. currents) you want to stop.

    The geoid is, effectively, the shape of the Earth in a gravitational sense, and the mean sea surface (whichever definition you use) is close (order of a metre or so) to the geoid. Early satellite altimeter missions (e.g. GEOS-3 and GEOSAT) were put up there to measure the shape of the Earths’s gravity field by measuring sea-surface height. GEOSAT was put up by the US Navy so that they could better navigate their nuclear submarines (variations in the gravity field can affect the inertial navigation systems), and it is also important to know the local meaning of ‘up’ when you’ want to launch a missile to land on Moscow.

    There is no simple latitudinal signal. There is a thumping great hole south of India (in the tropics) and highs in the Indonesian region and the North Atlantic.

    Let’s get back to what has become the true point of this thread – Spangly bashing :-)

  16. #16 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “Can you point me to a reference for this?”

    Or, in other words: “I don’t want to believe you therefore I’ll make you work hard for your temerity to know things, YOU BASTARD!!!!”.

    Ever thought of FUCKING CHECKING YOURSELF YOU TWAT?

    What? The internet doesn’t work for you? Google is banned?

    No, you just prefer it not to be true. Therefore you’ll want someone to do some work so that they’ll not bother to know things in front of you where your ego will be bruised.

  17. #17 Bolt for PM
    January 9, 2013

    I hope your job doesn’t involve interaction with others Wow, because you’d be a right dipshit to have to work with. With any luck you are kept well away from the other kids. And no pointy objects for you.

    And my mum and dad WERE married. Well… I think so anyway. But you never know, do you.

  18. #18 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    I hope your job doesn’t involve thinking, Bolt, because you’d be a right dipshit to have to get to do any work.

    With any luck, you are kept well away from sharp (or indeed any) implements lest you damage yourself with them.

    And no point to paying you.

    Your mom and your dad were sisters. Well, you don’t know anyway, but they could be. I’m just asking if you have any proof they aren’t.

  19. #19 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    Tell me, what’s it like to be so stupid, bot?

    I think it must be like being colour blind. You walk around knowing deep down something is missing, but you’re just unable to work out what it is.

    But you know in your heart that life has played a huge practical joke on you, and are desperately trying to find someone to blame for it.

  20. #21 Bolt for PM
    January 9, 2013

    Neil White, I believe you have agreed with me above by noting that mean sea

    level largely matches the geoid. This was SD’s point. You asked earlier what the

    BTP was and that is it. That, relatively speaking, the difference between the

    MSL and the geoid is extremely small which makes the sea surface very very

    ‘level’.

    If this is so today, then it would seem that any additional volume added over

    the past say 150 years due to thermal expansion or glacial melt etc must have,

    over that time, been spread relatively equally over the total area.

    Hence, the ocean’s ‘aggressively seek equilibrium’. Far from being a red

    herring, the BTP is integral to his case. And that is that, again over time (his

    case is 50 years or 70 years or whatever it was), we should expect to see SLR at

    every location because the oceans are ‘aggressively level’.

    However I guess I’d have to observe that in terms of arguing his case, it

    probably IS a red herring. And it is the departure from the geoid that tells us

    that. MSL as a value includes any SLR. If SLR varies from location to location,

    we could presumably have sea level fall, no change, and sea level rise.

    Given that the graph at the head of this post indicates 250mm of SLR over 150

    odd years, then that 250mm fits well within the range of the departure from the

    geoid – those 2 metres or so. I don’t think anyone has shown that the departures

    from the geoid are over time the same amounts for the same locations, although

    perhaps they are.

    Maybe I am a bit dim, but one would need a lot of data to measure local

    variations from the geoid over time, factor in all possible local forces, and

    then identify whether SLR is a contributing factor or not.

    An easier way would be to look at tide gauges and draw some measures of sea

    level change from them. Or from satellites.

    So unless I completely misunderstand both SD’s BTP and also just what MSL’s

    relationship is to the geoid, I don’t think it provides any argument for SLR

    having to be equal everywhere.

    The sea IS very level and the local variation of MSL from the geoid is very

    small on the scale of a billiard table, however the range of variation added so

    far by SLR is smaller again and fits within that range.

    Which brings us back to the question of why SD’s personal benchmarks do not show

    significant change. I take the points about local factors but I still think it

    is unlikely they could so effectively just so happen to mask an SLR of around

    what, 150mm based on a global average? However, from what I can see of tide gauge data for that area, the actual amount of SLR is far less than 150mm.

    This plot for Bundaberg offers us a rise of just 0.25mm/yr over the period from 1966. I call that largely level.
    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-073

    This plot for my local gauge appears largely level or even declining for the range 1986-2006, though this has changed recently.
    http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/2073.php

    Brisbane Bar shows a similar trend to Urangan, and Gold Coast too.

    So… I guess SLR is NOT happening with any great effect along the SE Qld coast. But I don’t think that the BTP suggests that the same effect is likely everywhere else.

  21. #22 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “Neil White, I believe you have agreed with me above by noting that mean sea

    level largely matches the geoid”

    Yup, more “world of imagination” from our most recent Willy Wonka. Do you know how big the earth is? 110m difference on that is “largely matches”.

    Try letting something called “maths” into your world.

    “This was SD’s point.”

    No it wasn’t. But it is expected that Willy will remember what he’d like to have been the case.

    Seriously, go back and this time READ spanking donkey’s posts. You obviously have not to date.

    “So unless I completely misunderstand both SD’s BTP and also just what MSL’s”

    You do.

  22. #23 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “Which brings us back to the question of why SD’s personal benchmarks do not show significant change.”

    Have you cut and pasted all this bollocks, hence the odd line breaks?

    The reason why his personal benchmarks do not show significant change is because he SELECTED the benchmark that would do so.

    This is called “cherry picking”.

  23. #24 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    In short, the reason why is because the sea level changes markedly from the average over the earth’s coasts.

    If you need proof, then go look at the data from all ports in the world.

    See the differences.

  24. #25 bill
    January 9, 2013

    BFPM; instead of wittering on with your obsessive desire to lay out your incomprehension beyond danger of refutation by ‘proving’ that there’s some merit in the odious SD’s ludicrous assertion – though you’re free to waste your life how you like, I suppose – why have you not gone over to Tamino’s to lay out your earth-shaking revelation of the flaws in the statistical method?

    Because at the moment, you’re a puff-adder: you’re just farting in the bath and counting the bubbles. ;-)

    Well, we know why you haven’t, but I wouldn’t want the lurkers to forget that given the opportunity to put your ‘Honest Seeker After Truth’ routine to the test and consult one of the world’s most eminent statisticians, you – appropriately enough – simply bolt.

  25. #26 ianam
    January 9, 2013

    Maybe I am a bit dim

  26. #27 ianam
    January 9, 2013

    Darn, strikeout doesn’t work. But it’s implied by Dolt’s ongoing defense of SD’s assertion that water tries really hard to reach equilibrium.

  27. #28 Bolt for PM
    January 9, 2013

    You know, one intriguing thing about most of you clowns is that you have a particularly confrontational style. So, just in the interests of stimulating some more mouth foaming, here’s a few little offerings for you to foam about.

    1. Bill, I have not at any time made any claim about any statistical matters, no earth shaking revelations. Please produce one sentence of evidence for that. I did however pose a question in the interests of honest ‘truth-seeking’, one that sprang from my thoughts about the question of sea level rise. See, I’m just a regular honest Joe. I do so sincerely apologise if someone so far below your exalted heights of intellectual capacity should actually give the matter some thought rather than just accepting what you say. Jerk.

    2. Wow, yes I cut and pasted. Because my clumsy fingers often cause my little notebook to do something unexpected and I lose a long, lovingly crafted masterpiece of insightful commentary. So I write in Notepad and copy. Sue me. Dipshit.

    3. Wow, you say: “Yup, more world of imagination from our most recent Willy Wonka. Do you know how big the earth is? 110m difference on that is largely matches.” Well, this is an easy one. I freely admit my recent very brief readings of the matter may have been completely misinterpreted. So, either what i said is wrong, or it is right. Which is it?

    So, answer me a question. “To what extent does the Mean Sea Level depart from the geoid”.

    Frankly, I have no idea other than what I read. And what I read says:

    “the geoid’s total variation is less than 200 m (−106 to +85 m) compared to a perfect mathematical ellipsoid” and

    “To extend this definition far from the sea means comparing the local height of the mean sea surface with a “level” reference surface, or datum, called the geoid. In a state of rest or absence of external forces, the mean sea level would coincide with this geoid surface, being an equipotential surface of the Earth’s gravitational field. In reality, due to currents, air pressure variations, temperature and salinity variations, etc., this does not occur, not even as a long term average. The location-dependent, but persistent in time, separation between mean sea level and the geoid is referred to as (stationary) ocean surface topography. It varies globally in a range of ± 2 m.”

    I read that to mean that the variation of MSL from ‘level’ is not much at all…

  28. #29 Bolt for PM
    January 9, 2013

    All of which means that our plucky little oceans DO try ever so hard, bless their little cotton socks, to reach a state of zen-like equilibrium.

  29. #30 Bolt for PM
    January 9, 2013

    Hence the deep affinity with the sea that so many of us experience, that overwhelming urge to be at one with the great Deep and to float blissfully in its Nirvana. Except when it’s rising too fast for personal safety.

  30. #31 bill
    January 9, 2013

    Now, c’mon, BFPM – don’t be disingenuous.

    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

    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.

    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

    Now, it’s been pointed out to you several times, that you could get answers to these questions, if it were the case that you were actually seeking them.

    But your ‘JAQ the Seeker After Truth’ routine is a pile of shite, Bolty. Thanks for making that clear to the lurkers.

  31. #32 ianam
    January 9, 2013

    you have a particularly confrontational style

    Yes, we confront lying bullshitting dishonest trolls who are helping to destroy human civilization.

  32. #33 David B. Benson
    January 9, 2013

    Bolt for PM — I provided a link a few days ago. A web search for ‘departure sea level geoid’ ought to work.

    Neil White — No, sea level departs quite dramatically from the geoid. View that as a defect in the definition of geoid if you will.

    Another possible convention is to use sea level on a rotating body, but absent of winds and currents. The actual sea level departs from that convention by at most 0.5 meter.

  33. #34 ianam
    January 9, 2013

    All of which means that our plucky little oceans DO try ever so hard, bless their little cotton socks, to reach a state of zen-like equilibrium.

    No, cretin, it means no such thing, and if it did, it would be wrong, because oceans do not and cannot try to do anything.

    Hence the deep affinity with the sea that so many of us experience, that overwhelming urge to be at one with the great Deep and to float blissfully in its Nirvana.

    All this snark does is confirm that “water aggressively seeks equilibrium” is idiotic crap that has nothing to do with how the world actually works.

  34. #35 chek
    January 9, 2013

    “All of which means that our plucky little oceans DO try ever so hard, bless their little cotton socks, to reach a state of zen-like equilibrium.

    See the difference one word of reality (reality being in a forever dynamic state) makes to your little sugar cube house and the moronic point you seem to want agreement with?

  35. #36 chek
    January 9, 2013

    All of which means that our plucky little oceans DO try ever so hard, bless their little cotton socks, to reach a state of * unachievable * zen-like equilibrium.

    See the difference one word of reality (reality being in a forever dynamic state) makes to your little sugar cube house and the moronic point you seem to want agreement with?

    (Sorry for duplication, but my emphasis arrows deleted the key word in my last post. Didn’t know HTML would do that.

  36. #37 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    Hell, deniertards, remember the “WHY DO THEY CALL IT SEA *LEVEL*, HUH???”.

    I note that despite you insisting you know what he’s going on about, you don’t seem to know what he is going on about.

    If he was just saying “it sort of is level”, then why does he make such a song-and-dance about “they call it sea LEVEL”?

    Oh, I get it, you don’t actually give a shit.

  37. #38 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    ” So, either what i said is wrong, or it is right. Which is it?”

    Wrong.

  38. #39 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “So, answer me a question. “To what extent does the Mean Sea Level depart from the geoid”.”

    Nearly 200m.

  39. #40 Wow
    January 9, 2013

    “I read that to mean that the variation of MSL from ‘level’ is not much at all…”

    I’m afraid I can’t do anything about your reading skills. They just plain suck.

  40. #41 ianam
    January 9, 2013

    Here is a good discussion of SL, geoid, and ellipsoid. Don’t get the last two confused.

    * unachievable *

    If water molecules were intentional agents in control of their own motions, they might be able to achieve it …

  41. #42 ianam
    January 9, 2013

    Oops, here is the first page.

  42. #43 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    You also have isostatic rebound.

    Another reason why “Why is my carefully chosen location not showing sea level rise”.

    Of course, this is also along with other such problems as

    Not being the sea.
    Not being the mean level but a peak tide height.
    Changed upstream changing inflow and outflow.
    Changed downstream (ditto).
    And many, many more.

  43. #44 Bolt for PM
    January 10, 2013

    Bill: “Now, c’mon, BFPM – don’t be disingenuous.”

    I’m not Bill. I raised a question, which I think makes sense for someone who has no background in statistics. The various versions of the question were to clarify what I had asked, because no-one seemed to me to be answering the actual question. I then read your links and did not understand them. So, I have accepted that I don’t and can’t know enough to answer my own question and must take at face value the responses that say it is all accounted for. So I’ve happily moved on. Your blather about making eath shaking claims or whatever is the bee in your bonnet is just blather.

    Wow: — “So, answer me a question. “To what extent does the Mean Sea Level depart from the geoid”.

    Nearly 200m.”

    OK, so why does Wiki say that it is just a few metres? The geoid itself varies by 200 metres. I posted the quotes from Wikipedia above. That’s not me saying it, it’s wikipedia. So, it’s wrong?

    Read Description here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level

    and Difficulties in Utilization here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level

    Now, must pop out for a latte, carry on chaps.

  44. #45 Bolt for PM
    January 10, 2013

    oops sorry

    Read Description here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid

    and Difficulties in Utilization here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level

  45. #46 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    “OK, so why does Wiki say that it is just a few metres?”

    Why do you go to Wikipedia to find out a science question?

    If you believe what the Wiki says on a subject:

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

  46. #47 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    ” I raised a question, which I think makes sense for someone who has no background in statistics. ”

    Why did you raise the question?

  47. #48 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    Is the reason to ask that question so it would be answered?

  48. #49 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    Darn, strikeout doesn’t work

    Use ‘del’, not ‘strike’.

  49. #50 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    You asked earlier what the BTP was and that is it.

    No, it was not.

    The BTP was “the ocean, relatively speaking (vertical variations divided by horizontal extent), is very very flat – much flatter than a billiard table. Therefore, since it is relatively very flat, absolute sea levels must, must, must rise everywhere at pretty much the same rate”. And if that were true (and SD asserted it), it must follow from his “sea level” measurements half way up a river that there is no sea level rise anywhere on the globe and all the measurements that show it are a pack of lies produced by mooching government scientists in order to create panic and line their own pockets…or something.

    In other words it was a ludicrous attempt to assert constraints (without any evidence) on rates of vertical change of sea level, merely by noting the instantaneous vertical variations in sea level were small relative to the large area of the oceans and then applying fallacious and innumerate “logic”.

  50. #51 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    In BFPM’s defense, some of the earlier material that was posted here – not just Wikipedia – also said that mean sea level only departs from the geoid by a couple of metres.

  51. #52 chek
    January 10, 2013

    ‘Strike’ does work, but strikeout doesn’t.

    (Some blog standardisation would be great.)

  52. #53 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    Even that esri.com article appears to match that earlier material – and BFPM’s understanding. The “100m” departures near India and Indonesia that it mentions are the departures of the reference geoid (which is not the same as the hypothetical geoid) from the reference ellipse.

    This is a different metric to the departures of MSL from the (reference or hypothetical) geoid.

  53. #54 ianam
    January 10, 2013

    Yes; my comment about geoid vs. ellipsoid was directed at someone other than BFPM.

  54. #55 Bolt for PM
    January 10, 2013

    Exactly Lotharsson. From what I read, the geoid is a referential surface implied by gravitational measurement. Every local point on the geoid is exactly perpendicular to gravity at that point and is thus exactly level from the reference frame of earth’s gravity.

    Without local effects of currents and tides and winds etc, the mean sea level would be pretty much the same, thus water seeks equilibrium, that is, it levels according to gravity’s influence.

    Local effects however do cause some displacement from the geoid, but these are not more than 2 metres globally.

    So, nowhere does MSL vary from the geoid by 100 metres or whatever – it is the geoid that varies from the ellipsoid in response to gravitational variation.

    Thus, the sea level, with effects included, varies extremely little from the geoid. SD argues that the variation, at the scale of the geoid, is extremely small and less than the variation on a billiard table’s surface.

    So, it seems perfectly sensible to assume that as water responds to gravity by levelling, any increase in volume must, over time, broadly equalise.

    If I am wrong in my understanding of the geoid and MSL, explain how, please.

  55. #56 chek
    January 10, 2013

    “So, it seems perfectly sensible to assume that as water responds to gravity by levelling, any increase in volume must, over time, broadly equalise”.

    Even as someone with little knowledge of the field – fluid dynamics – on the face of it this is a low point even for BFPM.
    How can ‘equilibrium’ ever be attained on a rotating planet with an exterior heat source, two interacting fluid layers (each incorporating some markedly different properties) and irregular land masses?

    How can BFPM & Co. possibly imagine their homely armchair brainal chunterings on something they demonstably know nothing about and have no data for (apart from stories and chat) matches the measured, empirical real world?

  56. #57 ianam
    January 10, 2013

    water seeks equilibrium, that is, it levels according to gravity’s influence.

    As I said before, water no more seeks equilibrium than apples seek to hit Newton on the noggin.

    Water covering a body with a highly varying gravitational field will have a highly varying vertical contour … so much for “leveling” and “equilibrium”.

    Ignoring all other factors (forces), water tends to conform to the geoid … it doesn’t “seek to”, certainly not “aggressively”, which is why, when you add in those other factors, it fails to.

    SD argues that the variation, at the scale of the geoid, is extremely small and less than the variation on a billiard table’s surface.

    No, SD states that. What he argues is that therefore, if the water level at his river reference point hasn’t risen, then neither has global sea level.

  57. #58 ianam
    January 10, 2013

    So, it seems perfectly sensible to assume that as water responds to gravity by levelling, any increase in volume must, over time, broadly equalise.

    You do understand that assuming your conclusion is a fallacy, don’t you?

    The question is, is it perfectly sensible to conclude that in the face of SD’s observations that appear to contradict it. How do you explain the discrepancy?

  58. #59 ianam
    January 10, 2013

    Oh, and how much time, and how did you arrive at the answer? We know that the reason that SD stuck the word “aggressively” in there was specifically to shore up his argument that there’s no SLR.

  59. #60 ianam
    January 10, 2013

    ‘Strike’ does work, but strikeout doesn’t.

    I didn’t literally mean “strikeout”; I used the “s” tag. In the future I’ll try s del.

  60. #61 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    Without local effects of currents and tides and winds etc, the mean sea level would be pretty much the same, thus water seeks equilibrium, that is, it levels according to gravity’s influence.

    To the extent that one might argue that “water seeks equilibrium”, it only does so when ALL of the forces acting on it are (a) accounted for and (b) unchanging (or very slowly changing). As (Wow? and ianam?’s) earlier discussion pointed out that includes forces other than gravity – including forces that arise because the earth is spinning – and because the oceans are not at uniform temperature, and because warming and cooling of oceans vary with (say) the annual seasons, and … you get the picture.

    There cannot be equilibrium on Earth – so any serious discussion about what there actually is on Earth that uses a mental model of “equilibrium” MUST also factor in the understanding that the mental model is an approximation and reality deviates from it. (SD refuses to do this with his own mental model which is one trick he uses to deceive himself.)

    So, it seems perfectly sensible to assume that any increase in volume must, over time, broadly equalise.

    Look, I can live with as a simplification for basic understanding as long as:

    a) it is caveated by all of the earlier points about multiple forces that never actually disappear on Earth, so it isn’t used for making detailed inferences.

    b) “broadly” and “over time” are suitably defined.

    On (a) when SD makes that kind of claim, he does not accept the caveats but then goes on to assert detailed inferences that are trivially undermined when one includes the caveats. He’s using the sophistry of arguing from a simplified model as if it were the full picture – and when people point out the full picture has bits that undermine his argument he’s jumping up and down insisting that the simplification is accurate.

    On (b), for example, “broadly” for SD seems to mean “practically identical everywhere”, despite copious counter-evidence. It’s the only way he can make his “argument” that local sea levels imply no global sea level rise. The measurements say otherwise so he builds a mental model simplified so that the measurements violate the model and then throws out the measurements. (This model also requires that thousands of people who’ve spent a couple of decades in education just to get to the start of their professional endeavours are all horribly incompetent. That alone should be a red flag…)

  61. #62 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    Strike does work? If so that’s interesting – it didn’t work not long after the site switch.

  62. #63 Bolt for PM
    January 10, 2013

    Let’s step back a bit. I have never claimed SD is right, I just said I saw his point logically. It might be completely unrealistic. Now someone asked me to explain his idea. I am doing. Not trying to argue it’s right or claim it for my own.

    Now, here’s some basic facts. Please, someone answer each with references if need be.

    1. The geoid is a referential surface calculated from direct measurements of gravity.
    2. The geoid varies in response to gravity and its actual surface height varies as much as 200 metres.
    3. Each point on the geoid is perpendicular to earth’s gravity at that point.
    4. Mean sea level, absenting such effects as tides, currents, winds and so on, would generally conform to the topography of the geoid.
    5. This means, if we consider each point (or location or place for the pedantic), the geoid is ‘level’ in respect to gravity at that place.
    6. Mean Sea Level as calculated diverges from the geoid however this divergence is within a narrow range, typically +/- 2 metres (exact number here are unimportant to the concept).
    7. Would MSL exhibit this same topography, or levelness, had we been able to measure it at 1870, 1930, 1980 or 2010?

  63. #64 Bolt for PM
    January 10, 2013

    That’s not an aggressive challenge. It’s me trying to see if I have it right. That is how I understand it from what I read. If that is incorrect, please point me to the references that show me that.

  64. #65 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    I just said I saw his point logically.

    Except that it is easy to verify that it conflicts with known evidence, which is, well, a tad illogical, no? That’s part of why people were objecting. Logic that is not grounded in evidence is quite fine in some fields of inquiry, but useless – or even outright misleading – in the physical sciences.

    Now, here’s some basic facts.

    Roughly speaking, as I understand it, 1-6 are not bad.

    1) Depends which version of the geoid you are referring to. The measured one used to be inferred using sea level measurements but I believe there are newer measured geoids obtained via satellites.

    2) Depends what you mean by “actual surface height”. I presume you mean “height as measured from the reference ellipsoid” in which case that matches my understanding.

    3) Strictly speaking it is the surface at each point of the theoretical geoid that is perpendicular to the gravitational field at that point. (You’ll need that “surface” vs “point” distinction at (5) – a point cannot be level all on its ownsome.)

    In practice I suspect the deviations from perpendicular on any particular measured version of the geoid would be very small.

    4) This one is tricky, but roughly speaking mean sea level used to be the operational definition for measuring the geoid, so it’s probably close enough for most purposes.

    5) Yep. That’s the definition of the theoretical geoid. A measured one isn’t going to exactly match, but it should be pretty close.

    6) From what I’ve seen that’s about right.

    7) Off the top of my head I don’t know. One would have to either find measurements or understand the forces involved with enough precision to figure out whether there would be any significant variation in the divergences over those timeframes.

  65. #66 ianam
    January 10, 2013

    Not trying to argue it’s right

    How soon you forget your own posts.

  66. #67 Vince Whirlwind
    January 10, 2013

    So, in conclusion, if the high-tide mark 7km up a river hasn’t changed in the course of about 6 ad-hoc observations over 50 years, we can conclude that there’s been no change to mean sea level anywhere else on the planet during that period?

    I’m just trying to see if I have it right.

    If that’s incorrect, please reassure me that nobody is really this stupid.

  67. #68 ianam
    January 10, 2013

    Let’s step back a bit.

    In other words, let’s ignore all the counterarguments so that you can avoid acknowledging being wrong.

    I just said I saw his point logically

    Even though it has been refuted.

    Look, if you’re actually interested in a discussion, you would be better off to stop being such a jerk and admit that SD’s “aggressively” is bullshit, as you have completely failed to provide any rationale for it or any reasonable meaning of it … your “geological time” comment obviously doesn’t qualify. And then instead of this teleological “seeks equilibrium” crap you could substitute “tends to equalize” or “tends to conform to the geoid” … the major difference being that this is a result of gravity acting on the water, rather than a “principle” that, in the idiotic words of chameleon, is “overriding”. On the contrary, we all understand that tendencies are overridable. That gets us away from SD’s propagandistic “aggressively seeks” and his intellectually dishonest inferences from it.

  68. #69 Neil White
    January 10, 2013

    BfPM:

    “Every local point on the geoid is exactly perpendicular to gravity at that point and is thus exactly level from the reference frame of earth’s gravity.”

    A point (local or otherwise) can’t be perpendicular to anything. A line or vector can be perpendicular to something. At each point on the geoid the local normal to the geoid is in the direction of local gravitational force (or ‘down’ or ‘up’ – the sign doesn’t matter). The satellite altimeter measures of the geoid measure the slope of the geoid. These days this is integrated wth data from various other satelites, such as the GOCE gravity mission, and also ship-based gravity data.

    Jumping to another message:

    “7. Would MSL exhibit this same topography, or levelness, had we been able to measure it at 1870, 1930, 1980 or 2010?”

    NO – because the estimate of MSL is, necessarily, from some collection of data over some range of years, the derived geoid (inappropriately compared to a billiard table in some circles) will vary depending on the time span of the data that is used in calculating the particular realisation of it. This is what blows the BTP right out of the water.

    This is what some of us here have been trying to get through – the MSL patterns (and hence the estimates of the geoid based on them) change depending on the time span that the mean is calculated over. That the patterns change is indisputable. It shows very clearly in the satellite altimeter data and also (over longer time spans) in the tide gauge data. Just becaue one point (even if it was on the ocean) shows very little rise over some period, it doesn’t mean that there is no rise elsewhere, or that the mean has to be the same as at the single point.

  69. #70 Vince Whirlwind
    January 10, 2013

    Neil, you missed your chance to spruik this most excellent Australian perspective on recent sea level changes, which seekers-of-knowledge could go to for information:
    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

    :)

  70. #71 Vince Whirlwind
    January 10, 2013

    …and I guess I should apologise for unwittingly assisting Bolt in creating the Geoid red herring confusathon by mentioning that sea level was shaped by gravitational anomalies.

    I also tried to distract him with earth-tides but he didn’t bite on that one.

  71. #72 David B. Benson
    January 10, 2013

    Look at the lines in Figure 2 of
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/sea-level-rise-where-we-stand-at-the-start-of-2013/
    The four different methods of combining tide gauge data, while in fairly close agreement, certainly exhibit differences.

    Find “All reconstructions to a different extent are affected by spurious variability that is not real variability in global sea level.” and read the rest of that paragraph.

  72. #73 bill
    January 10, 2013

    Just becaue one point (even if it was on the ocean) shows very little rise over some period, it doesn’t mean that there is no rise elsewhere, or that the mean has to be the same as at the single point.

    Can anyone who is not SD really maintain anything else at this point? BFPM has this habit of saying ‘well, I’m not at all saying that that isn’t true, I just think that SD has a point.’

    If there’s still a present tense component of the last phrase then BFPM’s position is an oxymoron. Just like this one from the 8th seems to be:

    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.

    Unless we regard the last sentence as a statement of the bleeding obvious thrown in for decoration it appears to represent an irritatingly woolly and simultaneously contradictory belief that SD’s river marker just might prove the oceans ain’t rising after all. Even though it doesn’t.

    That. Is. Simply. Wrong. That science is settled.

    But if BFPM’s position now is ‘I thought SD had a point, but now I know better’ then we can stop debating the number of angels that may dance on the head of a pin and move on with our lives.

  73. #74 David B. Benson
    January 10, 2013

    bill — Did we settle the number of angels?

    :-)

  74. #75 bill
    January 10, 2013

    67, wasn’t it? 42?

    Quick research reveals the, ahem, ‘correct’ answer is ‘an infinity’, them being non-corporeal entities, and all.

    And also revealed the source of this particular satirical quirk:

    For example, D’Israeli writes, “Aquinas could gravely debate, Whether Christ was not an hermaphrodite [and] whether there are excrements in Paradise.” He might also have mentioned such Thomistic puzzlers as whether the hair and nails will grow following the Resurrection, and whether or not said Resurrection will take place at night.

    Now to your question. D’Israeli writes, “The reader desirous of being merry with Aquinas’s angels may find them in Martinus Scriblerus, in Ch. VII who inquires if angels pass from one extreme to another without going through the middle? And if angels know things more clearly in a morning? How many angels can dance on the point of a very fine needle, without jostling one another?”

    ‘We could sit around all day debating whether there are excrements in Paradise’ – now, that’s got a ring! :-)

  75. #76 Bolt for PM
    January 10, 2013

    OK chaps, so we’ve established that my simplistic definitions of geoid and MSL and variations thereof are ‘correct’ and substantially more accurate than the concept expressed here by those who claim that the variation of sea level relative to the geoid measure in the 10s or 100s of metres.

    I read that in some way not well understood by me, the MSL is the actual defining property for settling on just which geoid we are describing. In fact, the geoid is derived from a theoretical fluid body responding to gravity. This theoretical geoid can be referred to as the reference ellipsoid.

    The actual geoid then derived from a closer examination of gravitational variation on the real earth varies from the reference ellipsoid, which as we’ve seen is largely smooth. This variation is in the order of 100-200 metres (depends on literature source it seems).

    Nonetheless, the critical point here is that in a sense it is MSL itself that defines which geoid and ellipsoid we will use, which means that the geoid is clearly derived from the response of a fluid bopdy to gravity and hence it doesn’t matter when we measure things to derive our surfaces (gravity and physics being generally the same over short time scales).

    Here is a nice quote that encapsulates this concept:

    “The geoid is a “horizontal” or “level” surface, a surface which is everywhere perpendicular to the local direction of gravity. If there were no waves or currents in the ocean,it is where the sea surface would eventually settle in equilibrium.”

    So, in regards to 7 above “Would MSL exhibit this same topography, or levelness, had we been able to measure it at 1870, 1930, 1980 or 2010?”, the answer is YES, because it is the properties of the fluid response to gravity that defines the geoid. Thus, unless some special effects have occurred and normal physics have not always applied, the dynamic topography should not differ substantially over a mere 150 years. The actual geoid undulations may vary in location and scale,but I cannot see how MSL variations from that topography would be different over time.

    Your opinions?

  76. #77 bill
    January 10, 2013

    My opinion is that there probably are excrements in Paradise.

  77. #78 Bolt for PM
    January 10, 2013

    Ah, well you see Bill, this is where you go onto the back foot.

    Let me restate the above more simply. “To a first approximation, the geoid is an ellipsoid that corresponds to the surface of a rotating, homogeneous fluid in solid-body rotation, which means that the fluid has no internal flow. ”

    Thus, the fluid body response to gravity is what defines the reference ellipsoid. And as we can read, that ellipsoid is largely ‘level’ because our homogeneous fluid settles to equilibrium.

    Thus it matters not when we may measure our ellipsoid, geoid and MSL as they are inextricably related by gravity and physics.

  78. #79 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    This theoretical geoid can be referred to as the reference ellipsoid.

    No, no, no! Go back and read the definitions again.

    The reference ellipsoid is the thing that sea level and the various geoids deviate from by 100m or more. It is a simple mathematically defined (and entirely smooth) shape – an ellipsoid. A geoid is an undulating irregular surface (although if a human could see it and stand on it it would appear “locally smooth” because local variations in gravity are small).

    If you want to talk about a theoretical definition of a geoid, you probably want to think in terms of gravitational equipotential, or equivalent (if I’m not mistaken) the surface that is perpendicular to the gravitational vector everywhere, at about sea level.

    If you want to talk about a geoid used for reference, then you have to specify how it was measured. It used to be measured by looking at sea level, but now satellite based gravitational measurements can do a better job.

    Often it might not matter whether you’re discussing a theoretical or operational geoid, but occasionally it will. Like the rest of your comment:

    …the critical point here is that in a sense it is MSL itself that defines which geoid and ellipsoid we will use…

    Yes, but not in the way you think. There are an infinite number of gravitational equipotential surfaces at different distances from the centre of the earth. For reference purposes we want to choose one that is a good approximation for sea level. The reference ellipsoid is an ellipsoidal approximation to that.

    But it is no longer the case that measurements of sea level define the reference geoid.

    …which means that the geoid is clearly derived from the response of a fluid bopdy to gravity…

    To a first order approximation, perhaps. But just remember that’s not a sufficiently good approximation to draw fine detail inferences (like constraints on sea level variations) about fluid behaviour from.

    And:

    … and hence it doesn’t matter when we measure things to derive our surfaces (gravity and physics being generally the same over short time scales).

    Well, it does matter if we measure things over too short timescales, as Neil White emphatically pointed out, because what we can measure is influenced by other factors, so we need techniques that get what we want to measure with minimal impacts from those other factors.

    If we measure observed sea level in order to measure MSL, then the standard appears to be a measurement over 19 years in one location because that is long enough to average out a whole bunch of cyclic influences. If we measure gravitational strength and direction instead, I’m not sure how long you need for a really good geoid, but Neil White will probably know. (Given that sea level varies from the geoid, and water is mass which affects gravitational strength, you have to be careful…)

    “Would MSL exhibit this same topography, or levelness, had we been able to measure it at 1870, 1930, 1980 or 2010?”, the answer is YES,…

    Well, Neil White says “NO” and he knows what he is talking about.

    Perhaps you need to be more specific when you say “same topography”. That means one thing to a scientist, and probably a different thing to you.

    The actual geoid undulations may vary in location and scale,but I cannot see how MSL variations from that topography would be different over time.

    You could be right. You could be wrong. That’s why we want to look at evidence rather than rely on someone “not seeing how”.

    So go the next step and have a go at defining what you mean by “same topography”. To do so you’ll have to specify something numerical, methinks, and sort out your confusion between reference ellipsoids, theoretical definitions of geoids and measured approximations to geoids.

    And seriously: pay close attention to Neil White on these kinds of things.

  79. #80 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    “I just said I saw his point logically”

    Logically, we ALL saw his point.

    It was written down, it was able to be seen.

    However, his point IS BOLLOCKS.

    You, however, don’t see this and refuse to see this and will not accept any evidence that indicates such because you are a troll.

  80. #81 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    “Thus, the fluid body response to gravity is what defines the reference ellipsoid.”

    No thus.

    The fluid body has to MOVE first.

  81. #82 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    If a 1m difference were created in an otherwise level pool 1000 km across, how long would it take the water to reach level?

  82. #83 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    “If I am wrong in my understanding of the geoid and MSL, explain how, please.”

    And how many times does it have to be done before you’ll bloody well accept it or fuck off?

  83. #84 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    “In BFPM’s defense, some of the earlier material that was posted here – not just Wikipedia – also said that mean sea level only departs from the geoid by a couple of metres”

    That would be a defense if he didn’t just ignore Wiki on anything supporting the science of climate that the IPCC reports on.

    He cherry picks what bits if Wikipedia he wants to believe are right or wants proving right (has he EVER asked whether the sea level really IS that level? No).

    Moreover, the few meters difference is ENTIRELY enough to swamp the 1/2m or less sea level rise.

    THEREFORE the insistence that because one location is not showing SLR is prima facie proof that there is no SLR is ENTIRELY WRONG.

    But Dolt here still bangs on about how “He has a point (though I’ll not say how or why or listen to anyone saying or giving evidence this is not so)”.

  84. #85 bill
    January 10, 2013

    ‘On the back foot’? You’re kidding, right?

    ‘I thought SD had a point, but now I know better’. True or False.

    I am otherwise simply entirely uninterested in your spirit-crushing array of obfuscations, dilations, prevarications, equivocations, peregrinations, ruminations, digressions, deviations, and diversions.

  85. #86 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    “To a first approximation, the geoid is an ellipsoid that corresponds to the surface of a rotating, homogeneous fluid in solid-body rotation, which means that the fluid has no internal flow. ”

    Fuck no.

    The geoid is not an ellipsoid, no matter how many times you try to conflate the two concepts. (It might be suitable as a first order approximation, but given that SD is trying to make claims that rely on a much much higher order approximation – 3 or more orders of magnitude more accurate – introducing this first order approximation is only going to confuse people who are already a bit confused. Like you are.

    And the geoid definition we have been discussing is NOT defined by fluid with no internal flow. It’s defined by the gravitational field, at something near global sea level. The definition you quoted is not the same concept at all.

    Thus, the fluid body response to gravity is what defines the reference ellipsoid.

    Whoever wrote this – I’m assuming you cut and pasted it – appears to be confusing two concepts by inappropriately choosing an oversimplified ellipsoid-shaped approximation for the geoid. The whole point of using a geoid for certain purposes is that an ellipsoid isn’t a good enough approximation.

    And as we can read, that ellipsoid is largely ‘level’ because our homogeneous fluid settles to equilibrium.

    The author of that comment hasn’t clarified which definition of “level he means. However it’s worse than that. An ellipsoid that approximates the shape of the earth is largely “level” because it is an ellipsoid that is not that far from being a sphere. It’s not largely level because some hypothetical fluid settles into “equilibrium”!

    I don’t know why you’re trying so hard to confuse yourself.

  86. #87 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    That would be a defense if he didn’t just ignore Wiki on anything supporting the science of climate that the IPCC reports on.

    Yep (although some of the material wasn’t Wiki).

    Didn’t say it was a particularly comprehensive defence. Just that on that point he was consistent with material presented (for a change).

  87. #88 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    But Dolt here still bangs on about how “He has a point (though I’ll not say how or why or listen to anyone saying or giving evidence this is not so)”.

    Yes, it’s impressive that he admits all of the steps along the way but just cannot bring himself to say “SD’s main point is clearly wrong, and whilst he has a minor point it is irrelevant to that claim.”

  88. #89 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    “I don’t know why you’re trying so hard to confuse yourself.”

    So that they can complain that they’re “only asking questions”.

  89. #90 Bolt for PM
    January 10, 2013

    Thank you for the comments. In summary, Wow as usual exhibits a lack of reading comprehension. Hopefully his day job requires no personal interaction with others, no reading or following instruction, no sharp objects and no requirement for logical thinking.

    Lotharsson, I do not mean to find fault with Neil White, whoever he may really be. That’s not a smart arse reply, but you seem to suggest he is an authority? I have no idea.

    Anyways, I disagree with what you have said, but I do agree I framed my latest piece poorly. I do not have the proper terminology and I apologise for that. Tomorrow, I shall try to reframe my statements better. But bear with me, I AM getting to a point… which is rather more than Wow can manage :)

  90. #91 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    …Wow as usual exhibits a lack of reading comprehension.

    Thank goodness I wasn’t drinking when I read that. I like my nasal passages to remain lightly hydrated at best.

    …I AM getting to a point… which is rather more than Wow can manage.

    Wow has been through a dozen points already, and you apparently failed to understand them all.

    … you seem to suggest he is an authority?

    I guess that even if you can’t see the careful thinking and communication, the depth of knowledge and the adherence to data in the points that he’s making, you could at least take a closer look at the website he linked to earlier.

  91. #92 Vince Whirlwind
    January 10, 2013

    “Thus it matters not when we may measure our ellipsoid, geoid and MSL as they are inextricably related by gravity and physics.”

    Gosh, that took an awful long time…They are inextricably linked by convention, habit, and the fact that measurement of one gives roughly the other.

    Meanwhile, sea level changes are non-identical in various locations, by observation, thus disproving your “logic”. Or Spangly’s “logic”.
    Whatever. It was wrong.
    Your defence of it was wrong. The real world does not conform to Spangly’s fantastical assertions.
    It directly contradicts your voluminous verbiage.
    You’ve spent days typing tangential nonsense in defence of somebody else’s nonsense.

  92. #93 Olaus Petri
    January 10, 2013

    Has this piece been highlighted yet?

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.se/2012/12/noaa-2012-report-finds-sea-levels.html

    What’s the deltoid analysis? ;-)

  93. #94 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    “Wow has been through a dozen points already, and you apparently failed to understand them all.”

    Hell, I’ve put them down one at a time so that they don’t get missed in a long message.

    Apparently even that is too complicated for them to read…

  94. #96 Lionel A
    January 10, 2013

    What’s the deltoid analysis?

    Anything from that site is bound to be suspect, i.e. crap.

  95. #97 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    If you want something more concrete, the starting problem is this statement:

    “According to the latest NOAA sea level budget, global sea levels rose at only 1.1 – 1.3 mm/year from 2005-2012, ”

    Which is ABSOLUTELY wrong.

    They have removed any increase in sea melt in the paper and the paper is therefore talking about the THERMAL EXPANSION component of Sea Level Rise.

    This claptrap site then says this is “SEA LEVEL RISE”.

    ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

  96. #98 Olaus Petri
    January 10, 2013

    Wow, is it wrong or just moonson wrong Wow-style? ;-)

  97. #99 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    It’s wrong.

    But at least you realise there’s a difference to me being wrong: I’ll listen to someone tell me how it’s wrong.

    The paper, though is Olap-style wrong.

    I.e. doesn’t even think.

  98. #100 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    Take, for instance the fact that you apparently have no idea what it is and have to come here asking whether it’s realistic or not.

    You know you haven’t a clue, but despite it being plain as day in your posts, you pretend that you’re some sort of idiot savant.

    You’re only half right.

Current ye@r *