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 Neil White
    January 10, 2013

    My last word on this:

    http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/portal/gfz/Public+Relations/Pressemitteilungen/Archive-PMs/2011/110629_NeueKartoffel;jsessionid=BE890C54E5ECD24ED57A365D96F5D14B

    The gravity field changes with time. The “billiard table” changes with time.

    I’m off to talk to some gateposts.

  2. #2 Vince Whirlwind
    January 10, 2013

    Olaus, instead of reading what the “hockeyshtick” kooks say the NOAA says, why not read what the NOAA says directly?

    “http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html”

    “There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

    While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

    The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

    Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

    This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

    This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years. “

  3. #3 Stephenk
    January 10, 2013

    Dr White, never, ever, forget the audience consists of more than just gateposts. Thanks for your input. Some of us can follow links and do learn from what is being offered.

  4. #4 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    Deniers pushing bullshit reheated is bad precisely because people like you are listening and trying to bloody well learn something.

    What the hell can you learn from Joan “U ar tu stuped!”, Olap “I don’t know”, Bolt “I’s just asking questions” and cham’s “u are all meanies” when they ignore everything and just repeat the same tired old shit again and again?

    Patience?

    The stupidity of the scum of mankind?

    That if the world ends, at least some deserving bastards will get it too?

    But anything interesting is off the cards.

  5. #5 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    Vince, doing that wouldn’t have given Olap a chance to make noise.

  6. #6 Bolt for PM
    January 10, 2013

    Neil White: ““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.”

    Neil, thanks for this. I went back and reread it to see if I’d missed some essential point but I don’t think so. Now, again, what I write here will not use the correct terminology and I know I’ll struggle to communicate what I mean.

    My basic understanding regarding the geoid is that its a reference surface that is bound to mean sea level. That seems to be the crux of your statements above. So, depending on when we ascertain MSL, the derived geoid will vary. However, I assume (and for those that hate the word assume, would ‘deduce’ be a better one?) that it doesn’t matter when you derive the geoid, MSL will demonstrate close adherence to its topography. Similarly for the length of time. This is a wild guess, but the longer time we take to deduce MSL, the closer the fit to the geoid.

    So while the geoid derived for a calculation of MSL in 1870 would be different to the geoid derived in 2012 which would be different to the geoid derived from a calculation of MSL over 10,000 years (if we had the correct data), the relative departures of MSL from the geoid would exhibit similar characteristics. In particular the range of variation ferom the geoid (ie the dynamic topography) would remain within a relatively narrow range.

    So I guess my question is better framed as “Would the dynamic topography of MSL when compared to the geoid vary significantly outside of the present day value if it were evaluated in 1870, 1930, or over 10,000 years?”

  7. #7 bill
    January 10, 2013

    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.

    Wow on Olaus. Exactly – that was my laugh for the morning! A past-tense, truncated version should be carved on his tombstone.

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    I’m off to talk to some gateposts.

    Enjoy.

    Some of them can participate in a much more fruitful exchange of ideas than our trolls.

  9. #9 bill
    January 10, 2013

    BFPM – could you please learn blockquotes?

    I just found myself pleasantly surprised to read something direct and sensible in what you were saying, only to realise it comes from Neil White.

    <blockquote>
    </blockquote>

  10. #10 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    …the relative departures of MSL from the geoid would exhibit similar characteristics.

    Maybe. Maybe not. (And that’s ignoring the fact that the question is still vague and woolly.)

    Do you have supporting data or are you merely reiterating your assumptions for the umpteenth time?

    My money’s on the latter, and the gateposts I’ve been talking to refuse to bet against me.

  11. #11 Lotharsson
    January 10, 2013

    You’re only half right.

    Yep, that one deserves to win the Intertoobs for the day.

  12. #12 Wow
    January 10, 2013

    “NO – because the estimate of MSL is, necessarily, from some collection of data over some range of years,”

    Why is that? Is that because any transient issues will be averaged out by the fuzzy law of large numbers?

    Correct.

    And globally, you’d need a GLOBAL dataset, for the same reasons, right?

    Correct.

    So when you talk about global MSL you need to take a global set of data with a collection of data over many several of years (to create a TREND OVER TIME), right?

    Note I’ve had to run YOUR side of the conversation here since you avoid any risk of saying something definite.

    So now you know why SD’s post about his river level and you’ve posted in defence of this being “proof” of no global MSL rise, you’ll shut the fuck up, right?

  13. #13 Ninbin Hippy
    Nimbin
    January 11, 2013

    David Benson,you have said that MSL can differ from the geoid by up to 100m. Neil White seems to be saying that it is no more than 1-2m. You suggest searching “departure sealevel geoid” but nothing much came up there. Do you have a definite source for this?
    I always thought it was 1-2m myself, but I am willing to be corrected (and I suppose endure abuse for asking a stupid question).

  14. #14 Vince Whirlwind
    January 11, 2013

    As Neil White pointed out, the talk of Geoid is an irrelevance.

  15. #15 spangled drongo
    January 11, 2013

    Tomorrow morning, Sat 12th Jan at ~ 9.45 am there is another king tide, possibly the highest tide of 2013.

    If any of you Deltoids would care to meet me at the Cleveland Lighthouse, Cleveland, Qld., you can observe for yourselves whether SLR is occurring. The Sea should be reasonably free of external influences and if the tide exceeds what the same tide did on a regular basis [ie cover the lawn there to a depth of about an inch] ~ 70 years ago, we can say that SLR is happening. If it is the same or lower than it was then we can say SLR has been postponed.

    NB this benchmark is not in a river estuary it is in a wide open bay with about a 50 nm fetch to the shipping channel.

    Any takers?

  16. #16 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    …if … we can say that SLR is happening. If … then we can say SLR has been postponed.

    No, we can’t, and neither can you with any intellectual rigour.

    Those conclusions do not follow from the observations for reasons found upthread – several times over.

  17. #17 spangled drongo
    January 11, 2013

    Lothe, you need to understand the facts of life; SLR is like justice, to be real it not only needs to be happening, it needs to be SEEN to be happening.

    You can tell everyone on earth what is happening in your tiny mind, but if the sea ain’t risin’, you in trouble.

    And if that hasn’t started to happen after ~ 70 years, you’re a bag of wind.

  18. #18 Wow
    January 11, 2013

    “SLR is like justice, to be real it not only needs to be happening, it needs to be SEEN to be happening.”

    So you can see it. It’s there in the data.

    If you REFUSE to see it, then that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

  19. #19 Wow
    January 11, 2013

    “If any of you Deltoids would care to meet me at the Cleveland Lighthouse, Cleveland, Qld., you can observe for yourselves whether SLR is occurring.”

    I have a life to live and can’t spend 10 years sitting by a river with an ignorant twat like yourself.

    Especially since the exercise will not prove or disprove global SLR rise.

  20. #20 Wow
    January 11, 2013

    spangled drongo, are you man enough to take up this challenge.

    Go and get the historical data for sea level measurements for all the ports in the world.

    Then determine the trend for each location over time.

    Then determine whether the trend globally is positive, negative, or zero.

    It doesn’t even require you to get out of your chair.

  21. #21 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    You can tell everyone on earth what is happening in your tiny mind, but if the sea ain’t is risin’ anyway, you people are gonna be in trouble.

    FIFY.

  22. #22 Wow
    January 11, 2013

    Tell you what spanking donkeys, why not go to Exmouth, Devon, UK and lets see this sea level rise.

    Or is this only something you want to do when YOU get to decide where?

  23. #23 Wow
    January 11, 2013

    Hell, go to New York City Harbour.

  24. #24 bill
    January 11, 2013

    So, the bigot has slunk back, along with his bedraggled idée fixe,

    Anyone who, in his dotage, has never risen above the level of the former, will never renounce the latter.

    That’s as certain as his being dead wrong.

    Only his gravitational impact on The Vacillator is of any interest; and not much, at that…

  25. #25 spangled drongo
    January 11, 2013

    The best data you are ever going to see on SLR is the sea at king tide. Not data on the results of dubious measurement. on the other side of the earth where you don’t know the full story. This is the real world.

    I can understand how five minutes of reality might be too confronting for you deltoids but I thought I would give you the opportunity to stare reality in the face.

    I should have realised it would be more than any of you could cope with but I will be there if you should change your mind.

  26. #26 spangled drongo
    January 11, 2013

    BTW, in case you have any doubts it is well known that the SLs used to cover the lawn at CP back in the ’40s and ’50s so all you need to do to verify SLR [or otherwise] is check where SLs come to tomorrow.

  27. #27 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    The best data you are ever going to see on SLR is the sea at king tide.

    Nope.

    And even if that were true for a single location it’s always been the case that a single location is not the globe.

    It’s really not that hard – unless you are only interested in asserting your own private “reality” in the face of actual reality.

  28. #28 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    BTW, SD, if you go looking you’ll find that (a) “king tide” has no scientific definition, and (b) the height of a “king tide” can be modified by local weather and ocean conditions so it doesn’t have the same tidal range every time.

    That – and the fact that the land can rise or fall over time – means you generally can’t compare one king tide height to another with enough precision to infer sea level rise or the lack of it.

    But we’ve come full circle, haven’t we? You’re merely reasserting your ignorance!

  29. #29 Bolt for PM
    January 11, 2013

    Thanks Bill for the blockquote thing. Let’s give it a whirl…

    Nimbin Hippy

    David Benson,you have said that MSL can differ from the geoid by up to 100m. Neil White seems to be saying that it is no more than 1-2m. You suggest searching “departure sealevel geoid” but nothing much came up there. Do you have a definite source for this?
    I always thought it was 1-2m myself, but I am willing to be corrected (and I suppose endure abuse for asking a stupid question).

    Yes, the geoid exhibits variation of up to 200 metres, but MSL varies by less than 2 metres from the geoid. So in effect, MSL varies by up to 200 metres.

    The critical point I think is that the 2 metres is due to local perturbations (eg tides, currents etc) while the 200 metres is the variation from local gravitational effects.

    Although the MSL varies by up to 200 metres, it is in effect still level at any point (disregarding the local perturbations) with respect to local gravity.

    And as far as I know, THAT is SD’s Billiard Table Principle or whatever he calls it.

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    And SD, you yourself seem to point out what I said in my last comment (my emphasis):

    … there is another king tide, possibly the highest tide of 2013.

    WTF?! (Notwithstanding all the other problems with your methodology which you simply deny), how can you use it as a benchmark for sea level rise purposes if it might not be the highest tide of the year? Even BFPM won’t touch that idea, methinks.

    You truly are an idiot on this matter. And somewhere deep down even you seem to know it.

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    Although the MSL varies by up to 200 metres, it is in effect still level at any point (disregarding the local perturbations) with respect to local gravity.

    The rest ain’t bad, but from there on it’s not quite there.

    The “200m” is from the reference ellipsoid, which is an approximation to the geoid. The “2m” is from the geoid.

    And more importantly MSL is not gravitationally level at every point – if it were, it would precisely follow the geoid, but it doesn’t. There has to be some non-levelness.

    (And neither of those are SD’s “BTP”.)

  32. #32 Bolt for PM
    January 11, 2013

    Actually Lotharsson, I think that is EXACTLY SD’s BTP.

    MSL WOULD be perfectly level, that is conform to the geoid, if it were not for local perturbations that overcome its tendency to be level. And as those perturbations amount to just 2 metres over the whole scale of the geoid, then MSL is more level than a Billiard Table

  33. #33 Bolt for PM
    January 11, 2013

    Let me say though that I am only trying to establish that SD’s BTP is perfectly logical and matches the facts.

    However, I now do not believe that it tells us anything about SLR.

  34. #34 Bolt for PM
    January 11, 2013

    Further to my point above about the BTP. Let’s reduce the concept to bare basics. IF the sea did not experience the locally perturbing forces (eg tides, currents winds etc), the MSL would conform to the geoid. And if the earth were a perfect sphere of uniform density, the geoid would not exhibit any deviation from the reference ellipsoid (or spheroid I guess). Thus, the sea tends to perfect levelness.

  35. #35 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    I think that is EXACTLY SD’s BTP…

    Nope, as previously pointed out.

    His BTP is an inference, not an observation or an analogy (neither of which need to be dubbed a “principle”.) The observation – what you’re calling the BTP – matches the facts. But as you point out it doesn’t tell us anything about SLR.

    The inference can be stated as “the ocean over its entire surface is flatter than a billiard table, therefore any sea level rise must be much “flatter” than that.” Put this way, the BTP (inference) is obviously absurd, as you’ve figured out.

  36. #36 bill
    January 11, 2013

    “It’s True! (Given a certain value of True!) It just doesn’t mean anything!’

    You know, BFPM, I reckon you could work this routine up as a sort of neo-dada installation somewhere; just think – you could be remembered evermore as the Enduring Genius of Futile Recursion…

    Anyway – that’s nice to hear. Will it weather the revisionist squalls? Who knows? (Or cares?) Glad you enjoyed the blockquotes. You’d be amazed how many people staunchly refuse to use them even when shown the code. Bye-ee.

  37. #37 bill
    January 11, 2013

    PS – now ask me how I can get the brackets to show up like that without becoming the thing itself…. Woooooooooo…

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    Apart from oversimplifications in your comment:

    Thus, the sea tends to perfect levelness.

    …does not follow, unless you (tautologically) remove all of the forces that generate local peturbations. To put it another way you seem to be mixing up a claim about the actual sea with a discussion of an idealised sea on an idealised planet.

    If you had said “Under this idealised model, the idealised sea tends to perfect levelness” it would have been reasonable, but it reads as a conclusion about our own ocean which is counter-factual. If you’re talking about our ocean you might try “mean sea level generally tends to levelness within a couple of metres” and then you’ll get more agreement.

  39. #39 Lotharsson
    January 11, 2013

    …you could work this routine up as a sort of neo-dada installation somewhere…

    What makes you think it isn’t one already? ;-)

  40. #40 Bolt for PM
    January 11, 2013

    Yes, agreed Lotharsson.

  41. #41 Bolt for PM
    January 11, 2013

    errr… about the sea being perfectly level that is.

  42. #42 Wow
    January 11, 2013

    What is agreed?

    That SD’s issue doesn’t say SLR is not happening?

  43. #43 Wow
    January 11, 2013

    Agreed that SL isn’t Level?

  44. #44 Wow
    January 11, 2013

    “The best data you are ever going to see on SLR is the sea at king tide.”

    In NYC.

    Or exmoiuth

  45. #45 Bolt for PM
    January 11, 2013

    Wow, I was agreeing with Lotharsson’s statement that “mean sea level generally tends to levelness within a couple of metres”. And that means that MSL is, given the scale, pretty ‘level’ or ‘flat’. And in fact, were it not for the perturbations that cause those couple of metres, it would be perfectly level or flat.

    After all, MSL is NOT an actual observable physical property.

    The real ocean of course exhibits a lot more variation with tides, currents, waves and so on, especially at very short time scales.

  46. #46 Wow
    January 11, 2013

    What you continue to get wrong is your assertion of what other sayl.

    But until you define what the hell you mean, your past performance wiii continue to ensure nobody believes you are honest in your dealings.

    You have killed your standing and you have to raise it again before anyone will listen to what you have to say.

  47. #47 Wow
    January 11, 2013

    “After all, MSL is NOT an actual observable physical property.”

    Tell spanking donkeys that.

  48. #48 Vince Whirlwind
    January 11, 2013

    “Flat” in this instance meaning, “curved, wavy, irregular and in constant motion”.

    Can we achieve any higher heights of pointlessness?

  49. #49 David B. Benson
    January 12, 2013

    “Over open oceans the Geoid and Mean Sea Level are approximately the same…” from
    http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/datums1.html
    which actually means within a meter or maybe even two.

  50. #50 Vince Whirlwind
    January 12, 2013

    …and in places over 100m off from being “level”

  51. #51 mdm
    Olympia, WA
    January 12, 2013

    Since 1910 the RATE of sea level rise has varied by less than +-30%(using long term averaging of non-cyclical phenomema), using tide gauge data [ lets not mix tide guage "apples" with satelite "oranges" ]. In that same period of time the RATE of co2 concentration has changed by +530%. Does that indicate sea level is strongly related to co2 (AGW…Anthropogenic Global Warming), or very weakly?!!!!! To imply that SLR has changed by over 200% (using long term averaging of non-cyclical phenomema) , in the last 100 years due to co2 (AGW) would be an inane proposition, which reveals the near psychosis in this field. Sea level rise is certainly one area where we have STRONG evidence of just the opposite!…there is nothing to be alarmed about w.r.t. AGW induced sea level rise…(get a grip!)

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    …and in places over 100m off from being “level”

    Any chance of not going around that particular loop again?

    It depends which definition of “level” you mean. If you mean “as defined by the ellipsoid approximation to the earth’s surface” then yes. But using that particular definition of “level” you get behaviour like marbles rolling “uphill” due to gravity.

    If you mean “as defined by a surface perpendicular to the gravitational vector”, then no. This definition is a much better reference surface for MSL, in which case it is accurate to say that MSL deviations are (at least currently) within a couple of metres of “level”.

  53. #53 Bolt for PM
    January 12, 2013

    And clearly, Vince Whirlwind, you haven’t a clue.

  54. #54 Vince Whirlwind
    January 12, 2013

    Yep, no clue at all – I’ve spent the last few days pushing the clueless idea that the world’s oceans are “level”, despite them being in constant motion around an irregular spheroid with a variation of 200m between high and low spots.

    Unh, hang on, that cluelessness was yours. Got to give credit where credit is due..

  55. #55 Vince Whirlwind
    January 12, 2013

    Lotharsson, that is incorrect – the billiard table is flat, not all wavy to take into account gravitational variations.

    The BTP clearly references an idealised shape, which would translate to the ellipsoid, not the geoid.

    So sea level varies from the Billiard Table by 100m in either direction, making it extraordinarily difficult to pot let alone produce a cannon.

    Let’s all thank Spangly once again for his awesomely useful BTP, and Bolt for causing this extraordinarily useful idea to be discussed in detail for the past week.

    Great work from the pair of them.

  56. #56 David B. Benson
    January 12, 2013

    And precisely 42 angels can dance on the head of a pin.

  57. #57 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    Vince, if the billiard table were the size of the ocean, it would HAVE to be wavy to take into account gravitational variations, if you wanted the balls to run “straight” across the surface.

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    Even Richard Tol, who has been somewhat skeptical with respect to certain aspects of AGW, thinks Karen’s citation is a crap paper (and he more or less calls out Judith Curry for falling for it).

    Here’s just one example of a glaring flaw:

    Unfortunately, fluctuation analysis does not work on trending variables. Therefore, LLE use DETRENDED fluctuation analysis. That is, they first fit a polynomial of order two to the data, remove this trend, and study the deviations from the trend.

    Having removed the trend from their data, LLE cannot answer the question: What caused the warming? They eliminated from their analysis the very thing in which they are interested.

    And this is the VERY SAME FLAW that McLean, Carter and de Freitas relied on to get their “result”, and which still other contrarian papers that claim all of mainstream climate science is deeply mistaken have made.

    And here’s another example of a huge flaw:

    LLE then estimate the Hurst exponent. The paper omits information on the adequacy of the statistical fit. No indication is given on the precision of the estimates.

    Here’s another:

    Crucially, LLE use the 20th century record to define natural variability. That is, they use the observations of the 20th century to assess whether or not the 20th century was natural or otherwise. This is tautological.

    LLE do not test the hypothesis of “natural variation” against any other possible explanation of the warming of the 20th century.

    And there’s even more.

    And as Tol dryly observes about Ludecke’s followup:

    Oddly, Lüdecke omits carbon dioxide.

    He apparently hasn’t even run CO2 through those analytical tests to show that his claims about the sun are a stronger explanation under his own methodology than CO2.

    It’s not surprising it hasn’t changed any minds – it doesn’t even reach the bar of surviving initial scrutiny, let alone undermining a huge amount of work that says their central claim is incorrect.

  59. #59 bill
    January 12, 2013

    I’d say the odds are good that Jesus was a hermaphrodite, and , as I opined before, there almost certainly are excrements in Paradise.

    Well, shits, anyway…

    I can see the expression ‘hang-on – let’s stop there before we go all BTP on this’ coming into local usage.

  60. #60 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    Aaaargh, sorry folks. Wrong thread.

  61. #61 Vince Whirlwind
    January 12, 2013

    The concepts being expressed appear perfectly clear to me, but the various commenters like lotharsson etc seem to want to twist the meaning …

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    Vince, I’m not twisting the meaning.

    SD’s concept was clearly expressed as MSL deviation with respect to the geoid. And the geoid is clearly a more appropriate baseline for MSL, no matter how geometrically different his billiard table is.

    His “principle” is foolish enough on its own merits without trying to redefine it on his behalf to be even more foolish – and doing so just gives him more squirrels to distract with.

  63. #63 spangled drongo
    January 12, 2013

    Well I went down to Cleveland Point Lighthouse this morning for the king tide expecting to see a Deltoid or two turn up to view the real world.

    But surprise, surprise. No takers.

    Probably just as well because the KT was 300 mm below its 1946 level.

    ONE FOOT BELOW the lawn it covered 67 years ago!

    What could possibly have happened in those 67 years?

    Could it be that coastal development and/or dredging is lowering SLs in Moreton Bay relative to the rest of the world,

    Or SL “mounds” 100 m high are sitting just offshore waiting to flood us at a moments notice,

    Or could it be that not only is SLR acceleration not happening, SLR of any sort not happening but that SLs have actually been FALLING?

    Could that be POSSIBLE?

  64. #64 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    Could that be POSSIBLE?

    Nope.

    This has been another edition of short answers to stupid questions.

  65. #65 spangled drongo
    January 12, 2013

    Or stupid answers to short questions as the case may be.

  66. #66 Vince Whirlwind
    January 12, 2013

    So because your ultra-high-precision observations of king tides reveal sea level has dropped by [some archaic unit of measurement that might be about 30cm] then obviously, sea level the entire world over *must* have dropped by the same amount, because the sea is like a billiard table (etc.).

    So all those satellites are wrong.
    All those sea level gauges are wrong.
    All those smart guys who didn’t just finish high school, but actually made it to uni and study this stuff full time are all wrong.

    Because one Spangled Drongo is smarter than the lot of them.

  67. #67 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    …as the case may be.

    Nope.

    What Vince said.

  68. #68 Wow
    January 12, 2013

    “But surprise, surprise. No takers.”

    So?

  69. #69 Wow
    January 12, 2013

    Did you go to NYC harbour to see the sea level rise?

    Nope.

    Exmouth?

    Nope.

    Surprise, surprise, it seems like you don’t want to do any measurements that aren’t exactly where you want to be. Indeed I doubt that you are anywhere near Cleveland Point Lighthouse. I doubt you’re anywhere near it. I suspect we would find that you merely pretend to be living there so you can claim that this cherry picked station is near you, therefore you “know” sea level doesn’t rise.

  70. #70 Wow
    January 12, 2013

    “SLs have actually been FALLING?

    Could that be POSSIBLE?”

    No.

  71. #71 Bernard J.
    January 12, 2013

    the KT was 300 mm below its 1946 level.

    ONE FOOT BELOW the lawn it covered 67 years ago!

    What could possibly have happened in those 67 years?

    Could it be that coastal development and/or dredging is lowering SLs in Moreton Bay relative to the rest of the world,

    Or SL “mounds” 100 m high are sitting just offshore waiting to flood us at a moments notice,

    Or could it be that not only is SLR acceleration not happening, SLR of any sort not happening but that SLs have actually been FALLING?

    Could that be POSSIBLE?

    No.

    If global sea level has fallen by your claim of 300 mm in 67 years, where did that water go?

    Not to ice, because there’s been significant net melting.

    Perhaps as rain on land? There are no records I know of that show such an enormous redistribution to land, but if you know of any please share them.

    Perhaps into the atmosphere? We know that it’s water content has increased with warming, but then the ice would melt and that would beg the question – why is the sea level decreasing?

    Or is there a rip in the space-time continuum that’s sucked 108 300 cubic kilometres of water fromthe planet?

    The truth is that the planet has not lost 300 mm of water to some undefined sink, because your measurement is facile. You have not conducted a controlled experiment – do you even understand the concept of controlling for impinging variables?

    For example, did you control for changes over time of:

    1) barometric pressure
    2) apsides
    3) solar, lunar, and orbital tilt conjunctions
    4) El Niño/La Niña impacts
    5) wave setup effects
    6) wave runup effects
    7) relative regional current effects?

    If so, please show your working. References and other documentation must be provided.

    If not, you’re an ignorant fuckwit with no clue as to what you’re doing.

  72. #72 Bernard J.
    January 12, 2013

    Oh, and why does your observation render meaningless the current flooding of lawns and other such features in the Torres Strait, and on islands such as Tuvalu?

    To say nothing of the tide gauges and the satellites mentioned above by others…

  73. #73 Vince Whirlwind
    January 12, 2013

    8) Wind strength and direction
    9) Land settling, uplift or subsidence
    10) Relation to a local geodetic benchmark

  74. #74 Vince Whirlwind
    January 12, 2013

    Judging by how suspicious and irate these cranky pensioners get when scientists do their homework properly, imagine the outrage if all the official sea levels were being “measured” using incompetent, careless and meaningless methods similar as Spangly’s?

  75. #75 Lotharsson
    January 12, 2013

    … imagine the outrage if all the official sea levels were being “measured” using incompetent, careless and meaningless methods similar as Spangly’s?

    Yep, some of them would have large errors on the high side causing panicky local governments into all sorts of emergency measures. SD would pop a whole set of gaskets.

  76. #76 Richard Simons
    January 12, 2013

    Oh, and why does your observation render meaningless the current flooding of lawns and other such features in the Torres Strait, and on islands such as Tuvalu?

    IIRC, he attributed those to overpopulation causing erosion. I don’t know why erosion should cause a general sinking of the land rather than a nibbling away of the edges (or perhaps it’s the weight of all those people).

  77. #77 Lionel A
    January 12, 2013

    SD

    Or stupid answers to short questions as the case may be.

    Well here is a short answer to that stupid statement.

    Why don’t you just go look up stuff about SLR at a decent source like this one here Sea-level rise: Where we stand at the start of 2013 — Part 2, and don’t forget to visit Part 1 linked to at the top of that.

    You could also go back to the start of this thread and learn from some of the sources pointed out to you.

    You could also use a course on Physics, Feynman’s three volume ‘Lectures on Physics’ should set you up. Same goes to chameleon and B4PM, you will even discover how your vision works along the way as a bonus.

    I have to keep this short as every keystroke is still agony right now besides longer posts are a waste of time as the length of this thread demonstrates.

  78. #78 Lionel A
    January 12, 2013

    Aargh! What now? My painful fumble-fingers I guess.

    SD

    Or stupid answers to short questions as the case may be.

    Well here is a short answer to that stupid statement.

    Why don’t you just go look up stuff about SLR at a decent source like this one here Sea-level rise: Where we stand at the start of 2013 — Part 2, and don’t forget to visit Part 1 linked to at the top of that.

    You could also go back to the start of this thread and learn from some of the sources pointed out to you.

    You could also use a course on Physics, Feynman’s three volume ‘Lectures on Physics’ should set you up. Same goes to chameleon and B4PM, you will even discover how your vision works along the way as a bonus.

    I have to keep this short as every keystroke is still agony right now besides longer posts are a waste of time as the length of this thread demonstrates.

  79. #79 Lionel A
    January 12, 2013

    Aargh! What now? My painful fumble-fingers I guess.

    This is getting silly.

    SD

    Or stupid answers to short questions as the case may be.

    Well here is a short answer to that stupid statement.

    Why don’t you just go look up stuff about SLR at a decent source like this one here Sea-level rise: Where we stand at the start of 2013 — Part 2, and don’t forget to visit Part 1 linked to at the top of that.

    You could also go back to the start of this thread and learn from some of the sources pointed out to you.

    You could also use a course on Physics, Feynman’s three volume ‘Lectures on Physics’ should set you up. Same goes to chameleon and B4PM, you will even discover how your vision works along the way as a bonus.

    I have to keep this short as every keystroke is still agony right now besides longer posts are a waste of time as the length of this thread demonstrates.

  80. #80 David B. Benson
    January 12, 2013

    Has this thread turned left or right?
    http://za.fotolia.com/id/41003573

  81. #81 spangled drongo
    January 12, 2013

    Just to repeat, those instances of KT flooding of the lawns at Cleveland Point all those years ago can easily be verified.

    This was a king tide not influenced by surge, flood, storm or barometric pressure so it showed accurate levels.

    So, based on the fact that my observations of those measurements can be verified [yesterday's and those of the '40s and '50s] why is Moreton Bay showing SLs a foot lower than 67 years ago?

  82. #82 spangled drongo
    January 12, 2013

    Yes DBB, when those end-of-life-as-we-know-it predictions fail to materialise, life does seem a little dull.

    But you guys can’t be blamed for not trying.

    You do your best.

    Look at the BoM. By wiping all those pre 1910 temperature records they have created all this new excitement.

    49c out west is now “unprecedented” whereas it used to happen regularly.

    Recognise any similarities?

  83. #83 chek
    January 12, 2013

    “By wiping all those pre 1910 temperature records ”

    Care to clarify that and state exactly what you mean by ‘wiping’ Spanky? Backed with a credible reference too.

    After all, some excitable dunderheads not to mention stray empty headed fuckwits might get completely the wrong impression.

  84. #84 Chris W
    January 12, 2013

    ” … why is Moreton Bay showing SLs a foot lower than 67 years ago?”

    Dunno Drongo. My initial suspicion would be that your BLT model is now completely fucked. Sorry … I meant BTP of course.

    But look, why don’t you ask B4PM. He’s all over it. According to that last post over at Marohasy’s he’s been doing a bit of reading, thinks SLR is a happening, and predicted that Saturday’s king tide WILL actually equal or exceed previous benchmarks. Sounds like a go-to guy for mine.

    Then again, maybe, just maybe, it’s all a *lot* more complicated than you Dunning-Krugerite ninnies are prepared to admit.

  85. #85 Vince Whirlwind
    January 12, 2013

    “49c out west is now “unprecedented” whereas it used to happen regularly.”

    It’s interesting the way you subsitute for real-world data your completely fictitious anecdotes which are completely disconnected from any real-world data.

    Imagine if climate science was being done by people who just made shit up like you do. Then you could *really* call the climate scientists “fr@uds” if they did that. But they aren’t. Even you aren’t – you’re just a fantasist suffering from a bit too much calcification in your neurons.

  86. #86 David B. Benson
    January 12, 2013

    spangled drongo — Foster & Rohling, PNAS, (just appearing): expect 9+ meters of SLR.

    That’ll dampen your picnic.

  87. #87 bill
    January 12, 2013

    You are a joke, Spangles. A sad, old, joke.

    As I’ve pointed out, you don’t end up this kind of nasty, delusional old man if you have any capacity to learn or change course. Nobody should be under any misapprehension that either will be possible here.

  88. #88 spangled drongo
    January 12, 2013

    You mean as well as denying reality WRT verifyable king tide levels, as well as not turning up to witness the real world as it is happening before your lying eyes, you Doltoids surely don’t mean to say you are also not aware of the BoM adjusting our historical, pre-1910 thermometer records out of existence because they could not be guaranteed to come from properly constructed Stevenson Screens?

    How much denial can a koala bear?

    The BoM admit it themselves.

    It must be only wet-behind-the-ear-and-in-the-bed Doltoids that don’t know what’s going on in this world.

  89. #89 chek
    January 12, 2013

    because they could not be guaranteed to come from properly constructed Stevenson Screens?

    And you, of course, know what that means when comparing pre-1910 records to present day ones?

    C’mon Spanky – show youy’ve got a working cranium, and not just a slowly expiring sluice you channel liar’n’denier garbage down.

  90. #90 David B. Benson
    January 13, 2013

    Relationship between sea level and climate forcing by CO2 on geological timescales
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/03/1216073110.abstract

    Many meters of SLR to come…

  91. #91 Vince Whirlwind
    January 13, 2013

    Spangly, the methods used for identifying good data or for adjusting tainted data to try to get something useful out of it are detailed in published literature and are therefore all out there in the public domain for competent people to criticise and therefore improve upon.

    Write up better methods for dealing with this data, publish it, and if your argument is sound, your methods will be adopted.

    The fact you and those you get your “information” from lack the knowledge, skill, or basic ability to participate in this process explains why the kinds of criticisms you’re subscribing to remain confined to crank blogs or cranks who’ve escaped from them.

  92. #92 spangled drongo
    January 13, 2013

    “And you, of course, know what that means when comparing pre-1910 records to present day ones?”

    chek, it may not have been perfect data, no data ever is but it was arguably as good or better than some AWSs we have today and should have been kept.

    Would you like to know where most station and official thermometers were kept out in places like Birdsville, Sturts Stony Desert etc where it gets seriously hot?

    On verandahs!

    And have you any idea how verandahs in those places were built a century and more ago?

    When wives and little kids had to live in those areas without the mod cons of today, [or even iron roofs for that matter] people built verandahs with very thick cane-grass roof thatching and the walls were also thatched with spinifex which wicked water up from a perimeter water trough kept supplied from the O/H tank overflow. This set up an evaporative cooling system that was very effective.

    Arguably those old records registered lower temperatures than any SS.

    In the ’50s I worked on a property aptly named Planet Downs near Haddon’s Corner, on the edge of the SSD, where the temps at the thermometer on the verandah were often around 50c [122f] but that would be “unprecedented” today. That was nowhere near a record then.

    I recall working in 50c temps when the windmill wasn’t working because of no wind and having to pump from the bore with a diesel engine to water stock. One reason I remember it well is because it is the only time I have ever seen a bird drop dead in flight, presumably from heat.

  93. #93 Lotharsson
    January 13, 2013

    …but it was arguably as good or better than some AWSs we have today…

    There is copious evidence that you have a very different definition of “arguably” to scientists. Your definition clearly does not meet scientific quality standards, and it relies on a whole host of unsupported assumptions.

    You use it to “admit” data in your mind that is biased from reality towards your existing opinion, but if it were used to “admit” data biased the other way from reality I reckon you’d be jumping up and down screaming about it.

    Your whole schtick is a con, but the only person it is conning is you.

  94. #94 spangled drongo
    January 13, 2013

    So Lothe, you would much rather believe a [possibly malfunctioning] machine than your lying eyes?

    Have you ever read the First Fleet Journals Lothe?

    Where Gov Arthur Phillip reported seeing more than 20,000 dead birds within the space of one mile at Rose Hill, Parramatta in Feb 1791?

    “A writhing carpet of birds and bats dying of heat stress”?

    Now Lothe, I’ve seen only ONE bird die of heat stress at 50c. How hot was it then to kill 20,000?

    How many times since then has this phenomena been recorded?

  95. #95 spangled drongo
    January 13, 2013

    And Lothe, have you ever done a direct comparison of a “verandah” thermometer with a SS thermometer?

    Try it sometime.

  96. #96 Wow
    January 13, 2013

    “you would much rather believe a [possibly malfunctioning] machine than your lying eyes”

    Since that would require each of thousands of machines not only to “possibly malfunction” but also thousands of people NOT NOTICE.

    The probability is that the sea level is rising and your machine is malfunctioning.

    After all, you’ve already said that such machines can malfunction.

  97. #97 Lotharsson
    January 13, 2013

    you would much rather believe a [possibly malfunctioning] machine memory of past king tides and verandah thermometers than your lying eyes carefully quality controlled and calibrated sea level and temperature records

    FIFY. Your level of projection is remarkable.

    How hot was it then to kill 20,000?

    Whatever answer you give does not support your claim that the older “verandah” temperature records are directly comparable to the new ones.

    How many times since then has this phenomena been recorded?

    How many different ways can be imagined that the same or higher temperatures occur without this phenomenon resulting? I can think of two huge factors for starters. Real biologists can no doubt think of more.

    have you ever done a direct comparison of a “verandah” thermometer with a SS thermometer?

    One “good” comparison does not mean that all comparisons will be good.

    Just like one “sea level not rising much” location does not mean that all locations aren’t rising much.

    Your logic is full of holes, and you cling like buggery to them even after they are pointed out. We do science so that we don’t deceive ourselves. You’re not interested in doing science – and the reason seems obvious.

  98. #98 spangled drongo
    January 13, 2013

    No Lothe, I don’t “cling like buggery” to anything.

    I just find it a problem when the real world contradicts the theory and I see something happening that is the opposite of what someone is telling me.

    Do you think that in the interests of historical records of temperatures that people measured in their homes and cities and had to live through in fairly primitive conditions, whether they were a little cooler or a little warmer, they were still data and should not be thrown out or adjusted on half baked, modern assumption.

    Does it possibly occur to you that back in 1791 when scientific measuring devices were not as flash as they are today and there were birds dying then at the rate of 20,000 per mile, there is a fair chance that it might have been at least as hot as it is today when virtually no birds die of heat stress?

    Or do you just put that down to birds getting used to it?

    Do you ever think that maybe it is you Deltoids that are having a problem with reality?

  99. #99 spangled drongo
    January 13, 2013

    And BTW Lothe, that data I have given you on the old king tide levels as I have repeated numerous times, but once more for Doltoids, is verifyable by talking to any locals who have known the area since the ’40s and ’50s.

    I mentioned it to someone yesterday who was familliar with the area back then and he said, “don’t forget, the tide used to come up under the house as well”.

    I had forgotten that.

  100. #100 spangled drongo
    January 13, 2013

    But even when our BoM use their latest adjusted ACORN data they still can’t get it right:

    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/what-record/