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 spangled drongo
    January 13, 2013

    But could it be that the ROW [apart from Doltoids, that is] is finally waking up to CC [Climate CON]?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2259934/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Global-warming-inconvenient-truth.html

  2. #2 David B. Benson
    January 13, 2013

    That Daily Mail comment isn’t even decent trash:

    The trend established in the late 20th century continues in the 21st:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/global-temperature-update/

    Sorry, there is no ‘climate con’; you have been taken in.

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    January 13, 2013

    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

    They’re not.

    You’re not interpreting what they’re saying correctly. To interpret it correctly requires understanding science and its nuance accurately. You throw both out at the first sign that it clashes with your preconceptions, and cling like buggery whilst denying you’re clinging like buggery to your incorrect understanding. There’s 1500+ comments in this thread that clearly demonstrate this to almost everyone but you.

    And instead of trying to understand what the science says you go for sources like that unsourced Daily Mail article and scientifically incompetent commentators like Ken’s Kingdom, WUWT and their fellow travellers.

  4. #4 Lotharsson
    January 13, 2013

    And for fuck’s sake, SD, why the fuck are you so determinedly gullible?

    Since you’re so convinced you’re good at telling where science is diverging from reality – which entails knowing what the science says and how confident it says it – it should be trivial to find where media commentary diverges from what the science says, eh? So please list for us the errors and distortions in that Daily Mail editorial comment you linked to. There are a number of them…

    Bet you don’t. You’re not doing science, you’re not competent to do science and you have no interest in doing science if it might go against your existing beliefs.

    (And heck, did you notice that the 5th paragraph in that mushy editorial comment goes back on the first two? Apparently not. The Daily Mail has such contempt for its comment readers that they think most of them will have given up by paragraph 4! Did you?)

  5. #5 David B. Benson
    January 13, 2013

    One could read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
    for a quite decent start.

  6. #6 spangled drongo
    January 13, 2013

    “You’re not interpreting what they’re saying correctly. To interpret it correctly requires understanding science and its nuance accurately.”

    So Lothe, I have to INTERPRET CORRECTLY do I?

    And its NUANCE too hey?

    Give us a break, Lothe!

    Ya remember the motto of the Royal Society?

    Nullius in verba? Take nobody’s word for it?

    It doesn’t say “take nobody’s word for it but pay attention to their NUANCE.”

    IOW if the facts are hanging out there for the world to see, DONT BELIEVE THE BULLSHIT!!!

    BELIEVE YOUR LYING EYES!!!

    Just think, Lothe, if you had come down to the Lighthouse yesterday, we mightn’t have to be going through all this crap now.

    You mightn’t be so worried about nuance.

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    January 13, 2013

    I have to INTERPRET CORRECTLY do I?

    Yes, of course! Are you truly that stupid that you think misinterpretation is a valid way to test it?!

    If you misinterpret it, then your claim that “reality is different from what they are saying” doesn’t address what they are saying. This is not a difficult concept. If you’re comparing reality to something other than what they’re saying then you’re not comparing it to what they’re saying. If someone says to you that “Unleaded is for sale at the local servo for $1.20/litre” and you rock up and see Premium at that price instead of $1.50 because you misinterpreted “Unleaded” to mean Premium you’ll get rejected pretty damn quick. But that’s exactly what you’re doing here with scientific claims.

    And yes, of course science has nuance. It has confidence intervals for claims. It has global averages of locally varying quantities which isn’t the same concept as “the same value everywhere”. And so on. If you pretend those aspects of what the science says don’t exist, you aren’t comparing reality to what the science says.

    … if you had come down to the Lighthouse yesterday, we mightn’t have to be going through all this crap now.

    As previously pointed out, that’s idiotic.

    You’ve already been given almost a dozen reasons why your observations aren’t necessarily in contradiction to the science which means you can’t validly draw the conclusion you “draw” from them, but you’re so busy trying to ensure you “believe your lying eyes” you can’t stop for a minute to realise YOUR EARS ARE LYING TO YOU about the science says.

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    January 13, 2013

    Typo:

    …you rock up and see demand Premium at that price…

  9. #9 spangled drongo
    January 13, 2013

    Lothe, me ol’ love, I sure wouldn’t be expecting, let alone demanding, any premium around here at any price.

    But you just refuse to get it, don’t you:

    Your Doltoid preconception of predicament has been postponed.

    Go back to bed.

  10. #10 Lotharsson
    January 13, 2013

    But you just refuse to get it, don’t you…

    Indeed. I get what you’re claiming, but I reject it as counter-factual based on examining ALL the evidence.

    You reject what the science says based on EXCLUDING a bunch of evidence. I get that. I truly do. You don’t seem to though.

  11. #11 Lotharsson
    January 13, 2013

    So, about the distortions and outright errors in that Daily Mail article. You ARE going to enumerate them for us, right? Since you have a good enough understanding of the scientific claims to know when reality is violating them, right?

  12. #12 Neil White
    January 13, 2013

    Spangled Drongo

    It seems that your ‘benchmark’ was moved in 1975:

    http://www.redland.qld.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/_About_Redlands/History/People_Places/Cleveland_Point_Lighthouse.pdf

    Your claims look pretty dodgy to me!

  13. #13 spangled drongo
    January 13, 2013

    Neil White, I hope you apply a bit more to your other work on SLs than that superficial drive-by comment.

    What has the position of the lighthouse relative to its earlier siting on the Point got to do with SLs?

    The LH is just a wooden structure on Cleveland Point. Whether it was moved, taken away completely or burnt to the ground would have no bearing on SLs there.

    What it DOES indicate though, is that Cleveland Point protrudes into a large bay with deep, navigable water surrounding it where the authorities thought it prudent to put a navigation light. IOW it is not a backwater and SLs there would be very indicative of general SLs.

  14. #14 spangled drongo
    January 13, 2013
  15. #15 Bernard J.
    January 13, 2013

    Spangled drongo said on 12 January 2013:

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

    Old memories recounted by ideologically-biased lay people are not veritifcation.

    A cross-checked, calibrated, referenced, objective and otherwise quality assured demonstration confirmable data is.

    Can you spot the difference?

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

    Since when has a “king” tide in or even near a river not been “influenced by surge, flood, storm or barometric pressure”? Please carefully explain and reference this claim if you believe it to be true.

    You will not be able to. Random anecdotal king tide heights at one location do not accurately measure global sea level rise. If they did, there would be no need for thousands of tide gauges around the planet, nor for satellites in space.

    And in addition to explaining why:

    1) barometric differences do not need to be taken into account between the mid 20th century and now,

    how about explaining why:

    2) factors pertaining to apsides do not need to be taken into account between the mid 20th century and now,

    3) alterations of mean sea level resulting from El Niño/La Niña cyclesdo not need to be taken into account between the mid 20th century and now,

    4) alterations of mean sea level resulting from solar, lunar, and orbital tilt conjunctions do not need to be taken into account between the mid 20th century and now,

    5) alterations of mean sea level resulting from wave setup effects do not need to be taken into account between the mid 20th century and now,

    6) alterations of mean sea level resulting from wave runup effects do not need to be taken into account between the mid 20th century and now,

    7) alterations of mean sea level resulting from relative regional current effectsdo not need to be taken into account between the mid 20th century and now.

    Of course, I expect that you will be unable to answer. We’ve been pressing you for hundreds of answers to questions over the last three years, and your record of successful response it effectly 0%.

    That’s the only lack of rise that can be demonstrated.

  16. #16 Lotharsson
    January 13, 2013

    …and on this blog SD will continue to totally ignore and deny the problems with his claims as pointed out by Bernard, and totally fail to point them out wherever else he repeats his claims.

    (Amusingly over at Marohasy’s, cohenite the ever reliable pseudo-scientist congratulates SD on his photo saying “now that’s real science!” This is the same cohenite who gives his reasons for not visiting Deltoid any more as not wanting to drive ad traffic to people like Tim. It has nothing to do with being entirely unable to sustain his claims…nothing at all.)

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    January 13, 2013

    Drongo says on the Marohasy thread:

    There were no enhancing or diminishing factors influencing sea levels that I am aware of.

    This is not true.

    He has been repeatedly disabused of this ignorant notion over the last three years. I and others have pointed out that:

    1. changes in barometric pressure,
    2. changes in apsides,
    3. solar, lunar, and orbital tilt conjunctions,
    4. changes in El Niño/La Niña impacts,
    5. changes in wave setup effects,
    6. changes in wave runup effects,
    7. changes in regional current effects,
    8. changes in tectonic position, and
    9. local subsidence

    all affect tide height.

    In addition, it’s pertinent to note that Drongo is moving the goal from his earlier landmark in the Nerang River, which is 7 km from the nearest exit to the open ocean and which was resoundingly debunked as a reliable gauge of sea level. When considering riverine locations, (and indeed even locations within close proximity to a river, such as Cleveland Point is, tide height is also affected by:

    10. riverine flood water flows.

    [The incredulous should note that Cleveland Point is in Moreton Bay, where both riverine effects still have an influence, and where oceanic influences are buffered and/or otherwise altered by Morton and North Stradbroke Islands.]

    Further, recalling the land mark that Drongo so vociferously promoted for three years, but about which he has suddenly become quiet, it’s salient to remember that king tide heights in rivers and estuaries are also influenced by:

    11. the damming history of the river,
    12. changes in the engineering of the riverbanks,
    13. changes in terrestrial drainage,
    14. in the Gold Coast context, the increasing development over time of canal estates
    15. dredging work in the river and/or estuary
    16. alterations in the location(s) and the size of the openings to the sea.

    And that’s not the end of it. In the context of Drongo’s use of a lawn at Cleveland Point as a tide gauge other potential effects include:

    17. sand/soil deposition by wind and other agents of erosion, and by human activity,
    18. direct wind effects, separate from wave setup and runup, impacting on local flood levels.

    This is not an exhaustive list. I can think of other potential confounders, but for three years it’s proved impossible to have Drongo address even the most obvious ones, so there’s no point going too far past the top of the list.

    So, when Drongo says:

    There were no enhancing or diminishing factors influencing sea levels that I am aware of

    he is either consciously lying, or he is profoundly mentally/intellectually impaired or otherwise contrained.

    For Marohasy to blithely reproduce Drongo’s concluding comment:

    So, according to my observations, sea levels in Moreton Bay have gone down about 300 mm over the last 67 years.

    without challenge, correction or caveat is in my opinion an indication of either a serious incompetence in the scientific understanding that would otherwise be expected of someone with her training, or it is a deliberate and conscious effort to create uncertainty and confusion in her campaign to discredit professional, working scientists who are (unlike Marohasy) trained, experienced, and expert in the fields of climatology and/or oceanography.

    Whislt I’m at it, it’s worth noting for the record that Drongo was unable to ever defend my demonstration that John Daly was completely and abjectly wrong in his supposed evidence to indicate that sea level had actually decreased, and that Drongo was also completely unable to ever demonstrate that he understood why he was wrong in his support for applying linear regression as a trend descriptor for an oscillating phenomenon.

  18. #18 Wow
    January 13, 2013

    Actually, Bernard, it could be true.

    If spanky here never reads nor learns, then he won’t know about all the effects that he’s been told about BECAUSE HE’S IGNORED them.

    Rather than be a lie, it’s spanky admitting they are mentally damaged.

  19. #19 Neil White
    January 13, 2013

    Spangled Drongo

    It’s because I’m careful that I’m very sceptical of anecdotal evidence. In most cases (especially in an area like this where a lot of people have agendas) it turns out to be WRONG when it is possible to check it. As an example, a year or two ago I had a guy tell me that sea level was going down at Busselton (WA) because he’d found an old map of Busselton (before they built the jetty) where the coastline was further inland than it is today. And therefore blah blah blah. It took about 20 seconds of googling to fnd the real reason – the large volume of alongshore sand transport which was blocked by the jetty (or something like that – I’m not a coastal engineer). Bizarrely this guy (who lived in Margaret River!) had never bothered to go and look – there are signs all over the Busselton foreshore about this.As well as the numerous state government and coastal engineering reports the google will find for you.

    The Cleveland light house is certainly not an unchanged site – there has been a lot of work there and I wonder if they didn’t build up the lawns to stop them being flooded at King Tides. Can you prove they didn’t? Do you have any levelling history at all?

    But let’s accept your 300mm drop over 67 years for the moment. That is an average drop of nearly 5mm/year. This doesn’t show up in any of the nearby tide gauges. Did all of this drop happen before the tide gauges started, or are the tide gauges wrong?

    Are you now saying that global SL has gone down by 300mm in the last 67 years? Does the BTP apply to Cleveland as well, or only to Chevron Island? And if it applies to Cleveland, why doesn’t it apply to all of the high quality tide gauge records around the world?

    And all of what Bernard J said too!

    Have you presented us with a single relevant, verifiable fact?

  20. #20 chek
    January 13, 2013

    “Have you presented us with a single relevant, verifiable fact?”

    No, Spanky is the King of the unverified factoid, being the possessor of nigh on 70 years of knowing everything that ever happened along the Narang river, and – incongruously – also the go-to man when it comes to vouching for the integrity and reliability of pre-1910 temperature records pertaining to all of the Victorian era Australian Outback. Somehow.

    Spanky would of course throw a fit if Hansen or Mann et al were to request that anyone take their word for their information without any data to back up their statements. (And is also a purveyor of crank sites which explicitly do (unsuccessfully) question those data).

    The question is, if generously one person in fifty even believed one word of what Spanky says,(and he’s got nothing left to convince the remaining 49 with) what does he think he’s achieving?. Which yet again, is why cranks hate numbers, as they always add up against them.

  21. #21 spangled drongo
    January 13, 2013

    Neil White, that is the old jetty we built ~ 1946. That is the old wall. Someone since has put some part of a newer block fence on top of the old wall as you can see and you can guess the possible reason. The neighbouring properties’ lawn levels are still the same as this one, as they always were.

    The old well is still there. Only the internal boarding is rotting and collapsing as would be expected after 67 years and the well is severely silted up. This has had the effect of actually lowering the surrounding lawn but still it doesn’t flood.

    All the old Oleanders are still there. the decaying slipways and general landscaping are still in place.

    IOW, the site is completely intact and original.

    And as I said upthread, those old lawn floodings can be verified by talking to old timer locals. When a king tide covers your property it is not something you forget and we are not discussing the depth of the coverage, just any coverage.

    On top of that, this benchmark agrees with all my other benchmarks for the Moreton Bay region ranging from the last 40 to 70 years most of which I also verified on Saturday.

    They all show very obvious falls in SLs. Just as you can see the very obvious fall in this photo between the lawn level which is the same as the wall height level and the jetty deck level, and what is now the current king tide level.

    AT LEAST A FOOT LOWER.

    This doesn’t need to be measured by me to the last millimeter when it is so obvious that the SLs are only going one way. DOWN.

    Have you ever carried out any enquiry by talking to people who are very connected to the sea and its levels?

    Like talk to people who have run a slipway business for a few generations. I’m sure there would be plenty around the country in suitable situations.

    If you did you might discover that there are many similar verifiable facts just waiting to be discovered.

    And I am not necessarily claiming that that is the true amount of fall but when ALL my benchmarks show FALLING SLs, your accelerating SLR claim is very hard to reconcile.

    You have to admit you are not doing your job very well when you ignore the real world and make most of your claims based on not what you see but what a computer tells you.

  22. #22 Bernard J.
    January 13, 2013

    And I am not necessarily claiming that that is the true amount of fall but when ALL my benchmarks show FALLING SLs, your accelerating SLR claim is very hard to reconcile.

    It’s only difficult to reconcile when you persist in ignoring all of the parameters relevant to your “benchmark”.

    You also have not explained the mechanism or the sink for a lost of water from the oceans that totals a volume of 108 300 cubic kilometres.

    That is, just quietly, 111 trillion tons of sea water that’s gone missing since 1946, in direct opposition to all laws of physics. According to your claim, at least…

  23. #23 Vince Whirlwind
    January 13, 2013

    It must be amazing to have powers of observation so much more accurate and precise than all those thousands of tidal gauges and satellites.

  24. #24 Wow
    January 13, 2013

    “AT LEAST A FOOT LOWER.”

    And ISN’T THE OCEAN.

  25. #25 David B. Benson
    January 14, 2013

    Still at it I see.

  26. #26 spangled drongo
    January 14, 2013

    BJ, when I observe the sea as in that photo and it is so obviously ~ a foot lower [tops of piles 4"; bearers 8"; decking 2"; total 14" but what the heck, call it a foot] than it was 67 years ago I don’t need to invoke all that distractive, obscure crap that you bring forth to try to show how clever you are.

    As I said up thread, if SLR is happening, it needs to be SEEN to be happening, like JUSTICE.

    If you can’t show that it is happening, stop digging holes.

    You’ll only drown quicker.

  27. #27 David B. Benson
    January 14, 2013

    spangled drongo — Consider the Thames sea barrier. Or the tide gauge at The Battery, New York City.

  28. #28 Vince Whirlwind
    January 14, 2013

    I wonder if Spangly remembers the controversy surrounding the new-fangled idea of “continental drift” or “plate techtonics”?

    It would seem he would probably get on like a house on fire with Don Findlay:
    http://platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/plate-tectonics-gone-wrong.html

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    January 14, 2013

    If you can’t show that it is happening, stop digging holes.

    People have shown you that it is happening in a number of places. You keep furiously digging that “no it isn’t” hole.

    And Bernard’s points that you dismiss demonstrate that you haven’t shown that you claim that it’s a foot lower now is a “like for like” comparison. But you keep furiously digging that hole too.

  30. #30 David B. Benson
    January 14, 2013
  31. #31 David B. Benson
    January 14, 2013

    Nor this:
    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
    wherein ‘GIA correction’ is for Glacial Isostatic Adjustment:
    http://www.psmsl.org/train_and_info/geo_signals/gia/

    and to my surprise, Australia is in a state of uplift.

    Which maybe explains something, hmmm?

  32. #32 Vince Whirlwind
    January 14, 2013

    Generally, I would have though you might be forgiven for thinking that a low flat point in a river estuary would be more likely subsiding.

    That’s why it’s lucky that Spangly’s observations are backed-up by a geodetic reference point, so mistaken assumptions don’t taint his precise and comprehensive observational data..

    Right, Spangly?

  33. #33 David B. Benson
    January 14, 2013

    Why is the GMSL different than local tide gauge measurements?
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/why-gmsl-different-local-tide-gauge-measurements

  34. #34 bill
    January 14, 2013

    Good find, David!

    There you go, SD and BFPM; exactly what we’ve been telling you, and straight from the seahorse’s mouth, so to speak.

    This will, of course, immediately ensure there will be no further futile discussion based on manifestly false claims… ;-)

  35. #35 bill
    January 14, 2013

    Oh, and, here we go – a timely series on the ABC: how will rising seas due to AGW affect Australia?

    (Of course, they won’t have consulted any befuddled old farts, i.e. ‘experts’ to the Denier crowd.)

    Enjoy!

  36. #36 Vince Whirlwind
    January 14, 2013

    I’m pretty sure that putting on a series about rising seas is proof of left-wing bias.

    Unless they have invited Monckton to present it.

  37. #37 Lotharsson
    January 14, 2013

    Nah, Monckton isn’t sufficiently unlefty when discussing sea levels. You need Morner, preferably channelling the ghost of Canute, before you (ahem) tilt sufficiently away from that pesky “left wing bias”.

    And even then they’re still gonna be a bit suspicious about the hidden meaning in the bias towards the left half of the alphabet in the network’s name…

  38. #38 Bernard J.
    January 14, 2013

    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.

    You are not seeing, you are “seeing”.

    By your logic, if you took the rainfall for wettest day in 1946 and it was greater than for the wettest day in 2013, then you have proved that it is drier now than then.

    Do you not see the flaw in your thinking?!

    I mentioned it to someone yesterday who was familliar [sic] 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.,/blockquote>

    And herein lies the problem. You are relying on ideologically-tainted memories of events from 67 years ago, when the remembering retirees were likely children. How on earth does a child (or even an inexperienced and untrained adult) understand exactly what the context of any flooding event was way back in 1946?! Especially when this biased and anti-intellectual person has no data on which to rely beyond an undefined image of flooding.

    You are completely removing the context from the event.

    I am beginning to suspect that you’re actually a poe, and that you’re trying to lead Jennifer Marohasy into a noose. Nothing else but poe, conscious lying, or intellectual impairment explains why you persist in addressing why the factors we’ve listed do not need to be accounted for in your claim..

    Which leads me back to the examples of the Torres Strait and Tuvalu. They are demonstrating serious encroachment by the sea – measurable, observable sea level rise. Why does your unsubstantiated and uncalibrated anecdote trump their hard evidence?

  39. #39 Bernard J.
    January 14, 2013

    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.

    You are not seeing, you are “seeing”.

    By your logic, if you took the rainfall for wettest day in 1946 and it was greater than for the wettest day in 2013, then you have proved that it is drier now than then.

    Do you not see the flaw in your thinking?!

    I mentioned it to someone yesterday who was familliar [sic] 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.,

    And herein lies the problem. You are relying on ideologically-tainted memories of events from 67 years ago, when the remembering retirees were likely children. How on earth does a child (or even an inexperienced and untrained adult) understand exactly what the context of any flooding event was way back in 1946?! Especially when this biased and anti-intellectual person has no data on which to rely beyond an undefined image of flooding.

    You are completely removing the context from the event.

    I am beginning to suspect that you’re actually a poe, and that you’re trying to lead Jennifer Marohasy into a noose. Nothing else but poe, conscious lying, or intellectual impairment explains why you persist in addressing why the factors we’ve listed do not need to be accounted for in your claim..

    Which leads me back to the examples of the Torres Strait and Tuvalu. They are demonstrating serious encroachment by the sea – measurable, observable sea level rise. Why does your unsubstantiated and uncalibrated anecdote trump their hard evidence?

  40. #40 Bolt for PM
    January 14, 2013

    Good Lord but you blokes failed logical thinking and comprehension long ago, didn’t you?

    Bill:

    By your logic, if you took the rainfall for wettest day in 1946 and it was greater than for the wettest day in 2013, then you have proved that it is drier now than then.

    That’s nothing like what SD is saying. He is saying that if the wettest day in 2013 is not wetter than in 1946, and nor have any other years wettest days been more wet than in 1946, it is difficult to argue that days are wetter now than then.

    Meanwhile, thanks to David B for the bit about GMSL and RSL. So, let me get this straight. When the Uni of Colorado tells us that GMSL “cannot be used to predict relative sea level changes along the coasts”, one wonders at the vehement claims earlier in this thread that GMSL rise tells us to expect commensurate impacts on coastlines.

    That said, SD may find this paper of interest:
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/impact-self-attraction-and-loading-annual-cycle-sea-level-0

  41. #41 Bernard J.
    January 14, 2013
    By your logic, if you took the rainfall for wettest day in 1946 and it was greater than for the wettest day in 2013, then you have proved that it is drier now than then.

    That’s nothing like what SD is saying. He is saying that if the wettest day in 2013 is not wetter than in 1946, and nor have any other years wettest days been more wet than in 1946, it is difficult to argue that days are wetter now than then.

    Wrong Blot, your comparison is erroneous.

    Drongo is watching a tide at one place on the planet, sampled at one unfixed moment in the year, in order to make a broad generalisation about long-term sea level trends across the globe. And he is be doing this without taking any account of impinging factors that are known to influence tide height.

    In my metaphor, Drongo would be sampling rainfall rainfall at one place in Australia, on one unfixed moment in the year, in order to make a broad generalisation about the annual precipitation of the whole country. And if his ignorance of standardisation, calibration, factoring, and other quality assurance protocols was replicated in the same fashion as he demonstrates when he blathers about tide height versus sea level, he would ignore the garden sprinkler that’s spraying variable amounts into his rain gauge on each annual occasion that he takes his measurement – likely standing 5 metres away from the gauge, given his lacksadaisical attitude to stringent measurement…

    It’s interesting though, Blot, to observe your mental contortions in order to paint my metaphor in a light favourable to supporting Drongo’s incapacity with science.

  42. #42 Wow
    January 14, 2013

    “If you can’t show that it is happening,”

    Here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U._S._Sea_Level_Trends_1900-2003.gif

    Now if the sea is always flat, how come they show different but increasing sea levels?

    Explain how donkey’s data overrides these figures.

  43. #43 spangled drongo
    January 14, 2013

    To give you some idea of BJ logic that insists on dragging in completely irrelevant side issues and distractions when running out of an argument, Saibai in the Torres Strait is a delta island formed from the silt from rivers and has always been awash at king tide and Tuvalu is not suffering SLR either:

    tidehttp://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1839.php

  44. #45 Wow
    January 14, 2013

    So Tuvalu is a little under 7000mm in ’95 and a little over 7000mm in ’11.

    Sea level rise.

    So now you’ve seen that sea level rise is happening.

  45. #46 spangled drongo
    January 14, 2013

    And BJ if you had accepted my invitation on Saturday I could have introduced to a few people who would have confirmed the SLs that prevailed up to the early 1950s which would at least have had the benefit of stopping you from bringing up more very obvious and unnecessary distractions.

    You really do get desperate when you are cornered.

    If I didn’t know you better I’d be inclined to call you an abject denier.

  46. #47 Wow
    January 14, 2013

    ” idea of BJ logic that insists on dragging in completely irrelevant side issues and distractions ”

    By bringing in on a discussion about whether there’s sea level rise, a place where sea level rise is happening…?

    How “logical” is thinking that evidence of SLR is irrelevant side issues?

    Since Dolt insists they want to see “effects” of SLR, that it is drowning is ALSO relevant.

    Unless you wish to comment on Dolt’s introduction of irrelevancies..?

  47. #48 Wow
    January 14, 2013

    “who would have confirmed the SLs that prevailed up to the early 1950s”

    Across the globe???

    No, you made it up.

    Hell, you don’t even live in the area and never turned up there yourself.

  48. #49 Wow
    January 14, 2013

    “He is saying that if the wettest day in 2013 is not wetter than in 1946, and nor have any other years wettest days been more wet than in 1946, it is difficult to argue that days are wetter now than then.”

    So you assert that Spanking Donkeys has no clue how to calculate a trend?

  49. #50 Bolt for PM
    January 14, 2013

    Hey Wow… can you ummm point out the SLR acceleration in those US trend graphs? Hmmmm?

    The Tuvalu one is interesting, quite a dip in 1998. is that a gauge/data issue, or something to do with the super El Nino? What do you reckon the trend line would be for that one?

  50. #51 Bernard J.
    January 14, 2013

    To give you some idea of BJ logic that insists on dragging in completely irrelevant side issues and distractions when running out of an argument, Saibai in the Torres Strait is a delta island formed from the silt from rivers and has always been awash at king tide and Tuvalu is not suffering SLR either

    You stupid git Drongo, this is my point. You consider other factors when the initial indication indicates sea level rise, but you ignore these same confounders when it suits your own story.

    And by the way, sea level rise is a component of the flooding in both of my examples. How typical that you cherry-pick your factors, in addition to merely ignoring those that don’t cooperate with your pseudoscience.

    And BJ if you had accepted my invitation on Saturday…

    What an egregious strawman gambit. Would you have paid the price for taxis, and train and ‘plane tickets? Would you have compensated me for the two three days I would have lost, in addition to me missing out on a significant family event?

  51. #52 bill
    January 14, 2013

    The Tuvalu one is interesting, quite a dip in 1998. is that a gauge/data issue, or something to do with the super El Nino? What do you reckon the trend line would be for that one?

    DYObloodyR

  52. #53 Wow
    January 14, 2013

    “can you ummm point out the SLR acceleration in those US trend graphs? ”

    So you now accept that

    a) there is sea level rise
    b) that the sea level rise is not equal in all places

    Well done.

    To find acceleration you need more data. You can find the total of the data here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/files/2012/12/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg

  53. #54 bill
    January 14, 2013

    Also, deadhead: reading comprehension fail.

    Bill:

    By your logic, if you took the rainfall for wettest day in 1946 and it was greater than for the wettest day in 2013, then you have proved that it is drier now than then.

    *BUZZZZKRK*!!!

    Pretty ironic in the process of accusing someone else of a comprehension fail, don’t you think?

    Take heed, Bolty – SD is where you’ll be in a decade or two.

  54. #55 Bolt for PM
    January 14, 2013

    So you now accept that

    a) there is sea level rise
    b) that the sea level rise is not equal in all places

    I never said there was not SLR, nor did I ever say it couldn’t be different in different places. What I DID say is that I can’t see the acceleration in the past 50 years. And I opined that SD had a point with his claims re local effects and the BTP.

    Clearly, there IS SLR at some locations, and not at others. And on the whole, it’s not accelerating. Ipso facto ergo sum, no scary world ending CAGW driven SLR, esp on the Aussie coast. My investment properties will be just fine.

  55. #56 Wow
    January 14, 2013

    “I never said there was not SLR, nor did I ever say it couldn’t be different in different places. ”

    Yes you did. It’s why you’ve never accepted what anyone else has said.

  56. #57 Wow
    January 14, 2013

    “What I DID say is that I can’t see the acceleration in the past 50 years.”

    Where?

  57. #58 Wow
    January 14, 2013

    “Clearly, there IS SLR at some locations, and not at others”

    Then why did you keep whining on about how SD’s observations showed that global SLR could not be rising?

  58. #59 spangled drongo
    January 14, 2013

    You’re not improving BJ. Now you claim SLR by using a silt island, that has always been awash at high tide, overpopulated to the extent that they have to build poorly constructed concrete walls to protect every last bit of their coastline which then just causes waves to explode instead of dissipating their energy and create even more erosion.

    That’s not SLR! That’s overcrowding and erosion and it’s a common problem.

    You need to go back to the home of your ancestors and get your head right. They understand these things.

  59. #60 Wow
    January 14, 2013

    “no scary world ending CAGW driven SLR”

    Ah, there we have it.

    Dolt is another denialist. Nobody but them whinges on about CAGW.

    Tell me, if your seafront property is so safe, in what way do you “adapt” to the climate change by keeping it? Do you mean some special denialist version of “adapt” which is basically “I won’t change, so everyone else will have to”?

    And talk to the New Yorkers about safe seafront property…

  60. #61 Wow
    January 14, 2013

    “That’s not SLR! ”

    Not even Dolt agrees with you, spanky.

  61. #62 Lotharsson
    January 14, 2013

    I downloaded the Tuvalu data, whacked it into Excel and added a trendline to the graph.

    And whaddayaknow – SD’s right! There’s no rising trend on that graph at all! I mean, go see for yourself. There’s most definitely not 70+mm rise over the data collection period. Definitely not. I mean, who are you gonna believe, the data SD linked to or SD?

  62. #63 Lotharsson
    January 14, 2013

    Concrete sea walls cause more erosion than no walls?

    That’s a new one. Is it supposed to be jumping the concrete walls and eroding the land on the other side? Or eroding the concrete walls? Inquiring minds want to know.

  63. #64 Bernard J.
    January 14, 2013

    And Drongo, I was going to wait a while before spring this on you, but I can’t be bothered to play the game.

    You claim that sea level is decreasing by 355 mm in 67 years. This is 5.3 mm per year. Where that water is going you don’t explain, but the alternative is that land is rising by 5.3 mm per year – and note that according to you this is happening around the world. That’s some spectacular tectonics…

    But it’s worse than that. You reckon that sea level is not rising at Tuval. If that is the case, then all of the 5.1 mm/year change at Tuvalu must be occurring as a result of land subsidence at about the same rate that it would be going the other way in south east Queeensland. Do you understand the phenomenal tectonic cataclysm to which you are alluding in your Velikovskian phantasics?!

    Definitely reminiscent of your hero Daly’s mangling of sea level behaviour.

    You’re not improving BJ. Now you claim SLR by using a silt island, that has always been awash at high tide, overpopulated to the extent that they have to build poorly constructed concrete walls to protect every last bit of their coastline which then just causes waves to explode instead of dissipating their energy and create even more erosion.

    Ah, so once again you recognise external factors that impinge on the perception of a change in sea level. Drongo, read carefully what I said – I’m simply making the point that your logic applied to other sites shows the opposite of what you claim for the nerang and Moreton bay. Why is it that you only recognise other factors when it agrees with your narrative, but never when it clearly disproves your claims?

    You really are a drongo, Drongo. You just walk into the noose and tighten it around your neck without any assistance required at all from the hangman.

  64. #65 Bernard J.
    January 14, 2013

    A question to lurkers here.

    Is it really so difficult to understand the points that Lotharsson, Vince Whirlwind, David B. Benson, Bill, Wow, myself and others are making, or is it just that Drongo has a grasp on 22nd century physics that has escaped tens of thousands of professional scientists and millions of other scientifically-trained people?

    And that he has done so with no need to account for empirical evidence (= the planet itself) that exists in diametric opposition to the conclusion that Drongo reaches…

  65. #66 spangled drongo
    January 15, 2013

    Sorry Bernie me old dummyluv, that photo of mine demonstrates one thing and one thing only:

    SLs ARE A FOOT LOWER THAN THEY WERE 67 YEARS AGO.

    Your never ending waffle on low lying, fully floating, overpopulated islands doesn’t demonstrate ANYTHING on SLs.

    Try another coconut.

  66. #67 spangled drongo
    January 15, 2013

    Doltoids may be very savvy on Gravy Meters etc but it took the Bolta to pick up on the fact that when the el Nino arrives it blows Tuvalu’s ocean away.

    Well spotted.

  67. #68 David B. Benson
    January 15, 2013

    Bolt for PM — In detail MGSLR cannot be used to predict a local SLR. One has to take local factors (such as land subsidence or uprising) in account as well.

    But in general one can say that MGSLR causes local SLR.

    As for acceleration, this is still disputed. That is, the experts are divided in whether SLR as increased in the past 30 years in comparison to around 1900 CE. What is not disputed is that sea levels will rise (at an increasing rate) another 4+ meters.

  68. #69 Bernard J.
    January 15, 2013

    Doltoids may be very savvy on Gravy Meters etc but it took the Bolta to pick up on the fact that when the el Nino arrives it blows Tuvalu’s ocean away.

    Drongo, you really are a gormless twerp:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Whats-Happening-To-Tuvalu-Sea-Level.html

    Did you not read the link whenI included it in my second-to-last post?

  69. #70 Lotharsson
    January 15, 2013

    So SD throws out some more “squirrel!” exclamations.

    How about that rising sea level trend in the Tuvala data that you pointed to, SD? The one you said is “not suffering SLR”?

    It’s really handy that any inconvenient fact just goes down the memory hole with you.

  70. #71 Bernard J.
    January 15, 2013

    Drongo, given that you now claim a 14 inch drop in sea level in 67 years, where has the one hundred and twenty-eight thousand three hundred and seventy-two cubic kilometres (128 372 km2 of seawater represented by this decrease disappeared to?

    Just to help you get a grasp of the disappeared seawater, that’s one hundred and thirty one trillion five hundred and eighty-one billion metric tons (1.31581 x 10 14 of missing ocean.

    Where did it go?

    And what physical phenomenon or phenomena moved it there?

  71. #72 Bernard J.
    January 15, 2013

    Bloody National Geographic and it’s pitifully-capabilitied site. Oh for a preview and html that works.

    Take 2:

    Drongo, given that you now claim a 14 inch drop in sea level in 67 years, where has the one hundred and twenty-eight thousand three hundred and seventy-two cubic kilometres (128 372 km^3) of seawater represented by this decrease disappeared to?

    Just to help you get a grasp of the disappeared seawater, that’s one hundred and thirty one trillion five hundred and eighty-one billion metric tons (1.31581 x 10^14 tons) of missing ocean. Or, if you want it in SI units, that’s one hundred and thirty one quadrillion five hundred and eighty-one trillion kilograms (1.31581 x 10^17 kg) of missing ocean…

    Where did it go?

    And what physical phenomenon or phenomena moved it there?

  72. #73 bill
    January 15, 2013

    I think the phenomenon you’re looking for is the heroic power of indomitable ignorance.

    All these fancy words and physics terms you’re using are just a form of cheating, you see; SD, like Chebbie, lives in a ‘reality’ which is composed in its entirity of the puppet-show that’s always playing inside his head.

  73. #74 Bernard J.
    January 15, 2013

    Spangled drongo:

    Sorry Bernie me old dummyluv, that photo of mine demonstrates one thing and one thing only:

    SLs ARE A FOOT LOWER THAN THEY WERE 67 YEARS AGO.

    Your never ending waffle on low lying, fully floating, overpopulated islands doesn’t demonstrate ANYTHING on SLs.

    Let’s try this one point* at a time, as simultaneous listing of multiple factors obviously overwhelms the one-cylinder ganglion that substitutes for your brain.

    What was the barometric pressure at the time of the tide in 1946?

    What was the barometric pressure at the time of the tide last week?

    What is the difference between the two values?

    What effect would this have had on the height that the tide achieved last week compared to 1946?

    You might think that you can avoid answering these questions Drongo, but you can’t – not if you expect anyone to take your claim seriously. If barometric pressure is relevant, you need to account for it, an to show that you have done so.

    If it’s not relevant, explain why.

    And I note that you still haven’t addressed the matters of John Daly being completely and abjectly wrong in his supposed evidence to indicate that sea level had actually decreased, and that you understand why you are wrong in your support for applying linear regression as a trend descriptor for an oscillating phenomenon.

    [And don't forget that there is a long list of further factors to be considered in subsequent posts...]

  74. #75 spangled drongo
    January 15, 2013

    Poor ol’ Bernie. There I was giving him the BotD on Gravy Meters and he blew it. He actually BELIEVES them.

    And like most of the other Ds here, he doesn’t know anything about fully floating coral atolls and delta islands either.

    Oh well, next coconut!

  75. #76 spangled drongo
    January 15, 2013

    Bernie, I’ve already given you a present of 5cm and if you had paid attention you would have seen my barometer reading for last Sat.

    I have also said that those king tide levels that I quoted for the ’40s and ’50s did not include enhancing influences such as floods or cyclones so average BP would have been between roughly 1005 and 1020 hPa. IOW 1012.5 average which is exactly what it was on Sat.

    That is a reasonable question but give me some credit for knowing what influences SLs.

    Now that will give you lots more coconuts.

  76. #77 chameleon
    January 15, 2013

    Wow,
    You are hilarious!
    You are always good for a laugh:

    “Tell me, if your seafront property is so safe, in what way do you “adapt” to the climate change by keeping it? Do you mean some special denialist version of “adapt” which is basically “I won’t change, so everyone else will have to”?

    And talk to the New Yorkers about safe seafront property…”

    Can you please offer a Wow definition of a ‘safe seafront property’?
    What do you expect a seafront property to be ‘safe’ from?
    Would you like to let us all know where you think there is or has ever been a ‘safe seafront property’?
    Do the people in NY have any extra reason to not change or adapt and therefore expect everyone else to do something about the fact that the city was built on the coast?

    If you can’t manage that without added insults and expletives I’m fine with that.
    It will give me and my hairdesser an extra good laugh.

  77. #78 bill
    January 15, 2013

    Boy, are these two made for each other…

  78. #79 David B. Benson
    January 15, 2013

    This thread will never die, just slowly fade into irrelevance…

    Do we need to further discuss how many angels dance on the head of a pin?

  79. #80 chameleon
    January 15, 2013

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
    Seen this one?
    Are all these people ‘nutters’ or perhaps ‘mediocre at best’ or perhaps did they work for someone suspicious in their past?
    Conclusion in the abstract:
    “The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.

    However, I’m sure Lotharsson and Bill etcetera will let us all know that there are deeper and intellectual ‘nuances’ in this.
    And therefore words and phrases like:
    ‘ which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing.’ or:
    ‘weak or absent’
    mean something other that ‘ small or no acceleration’ or ‘weak or absent’.

  80. #81 Lotharsson
    January 15, 2013

    Chameleon, it was discussed briefly here some time back, an article which has been mentioned a couple of times on Deltoid already. Do try to keep up.

    BTW, that commentary argues strongly (in the Has sea-level rise accelerated? section) that the claim that sea level rise shows little or no acceleration over the 20th Century is mistaken. That section and the link goes into some detail. I’m sure you and your hairdresser will be able to point out why it’s wrong. Here’s the start of the explanation:

    The argument is based only on considering the acceleration factor from a quadratic fit…

    (Shades of Tim Curtin.)

    Maybe you’d prefer to skip straight to the simplified tutorial?

    Seeing as you are able to distinguish valid from invalid statistical uses of data I’m sure you’ll be able to point out how inferring acceleration from a quadratic fit when your data isn’t quadratic is perfectly valid when these guys do it, even though:

    If we do focus on the temporal history, we find that in all but one of the sea-level reconstructions shown in Gregory et al. (their Fig. 6) the most recent rate of rise is unprecedented since the start of the record, despite the curves ending already in 2000 and all below the more reliable satellite rate of 3.2 mm/year. Early in the 20th Century, all show rates around 1.5 mm/year.

    Hmmmm…

    And you do realise though, that that particular paper implies higher 21st Century Sea Level Rises than previously thought, right?

    Now that we’ve got that out of the way, how about all that homework that was piling up for you? I seem to recall there was a whole list of issues with your claims that you hadn’t yet responded to…

  81. #82 Lotharsson
    January 15, 2013

    Let me put it another way in a futile attempt to forestall yet another chameleon misinterpretation.

    That paper doesn’t appear to be denialism at work – it looks like they just got it wrong.

    There is a current discussion in the scientific literature of a number of papers that make similar claims and use similar methods. I’m pretty confident – especially given the egregious error their method is shown to make in the simplified tutorial I linked to – that nearly everyone will agree the method is wrong once the dust settles.

    You, of course, who are never taken in by claims derived from inappropriate methodology, are welcome to try and show how the method is correct. But to do so you’ll have to show why the incorrect result of the method in the simplified tutorial is actually correct.

    I predict you’ll Gish Gallop to the next “point” instead!

  82. #83 Vince Whirlwind
    January 15, 2013

    Like Flannery’s, “Global Organism”, which you seemed to find funny. Do you know what it actually *is*, yet?

  83. #84 spangled drongo
    January 15, 2013

    Chameleon, could it be that Neil, John et al are having second thoughts?

    Is the Gravy Meter vacillating?

    Say it isn’t so!

    DBB, I’ve got 355 on my pin and that’s about 500 more than you got.

    Nah na na Nah!

  84. #85 Vince Whirlwind
    January 15, 2013

    Come to think of it, I thought all dissenting scientists were blackballed by peer-reviewed journals, which is why Maclean, McKitrick, Watts, McIntyre, etc… are forced to publish their research in places like, The Journal of Mining Stock Spruiking, and so forth.
    Could it be that genuine scientists who can actually conduct genuine research (and don’t feel the need to pad their CVs with imaginary PhD’s, eh, John?) have no trouble getting honest and accurate work published if it is of a sufficient quality?

  85. #86 Lotharsson
    January 15, 2013

    Chameleon still hasn’t apologised to Richard Simons for blatantly lying about what he wrote.

    She seems happy to cultivate a reputation for dishonesty.

  86. #87 Bernard J.
    January 15, 2013

    Bernie, I’ve already given you a present of 5cm and if you had paid attention you would have seen my barometer reading for last Sat.

    I have also said that those king tide levels that I quoted for the ’40s and ’50s did not include enhancing influences such as floods or cyclones so average BP would have been between roughly 1005 and 1020 hPa. IOW 1012.5 average which is exactly what it was on Sat.

    So, you can’t answer the questions?

    I accept your capitulation, and the concession of defeat that it indicates.

    That is a reasonable question but give me some credit for knowing what influences SLs.

    Why on earth would I do that when you haven’t shown any sign over the last three years of understanding this?! The prime example is your refusal to answer the simple first questions about the effect that barometric pressure has on separate occasions of tide peaks over time. You choke on actually demonstrating any understanding or appreciation of this, and you in fact insist that barometric pressure is not a factor affecting your tidal observations.

    So no, Drongo, you get no credit for understanding anything about the science of sea level rise. You have shown yourself to have been able to learn nothing in three years – that’s about as flat a learning curve as anyone could ever have.

    And I note that you continue as ever to avoid those long-ago asked questions piling up at your door…

    You are an under-achiever if ever there was one.

  87. #88 chameleon
    January 15, 2013

    I have no idea how that ‘gravy train’ works SD.
    But it appears that Lotharsson has just said that those proper climate scientists at those proper institutions like CSIRO, simply got it wrong!
    How did that get past peer review?
    Wouldn’t be because they didn’t unscrupulously but clearly outline their timeframes and methodology would it?

  88. #89 chameleon
    January 15, 2013

    Yes Vince!
    Bingo!
    I do find it funny!
    Well done!
    I haven’t had time to find that clip for you.
    I’m stunned that Bill (?) hasn’t done it.
    I’m positive it’s googleable, how about you give it a shot?
    There was also an analogy with ants if my memory serves me correctly.

  89. #90 chameleon
    January 15, 2013

    Lotharsson?
    Are you the apology monitor at this blog?
    I seem to recall you implying I should expect Spangled D to apologise before I said anymore about Wow’s and Bill’s use of gutter language.
    And I did apologise for the misnomer.
    I had no problem interpreting the original ‘probably’ comment.
    Anyway, some of you went into great lengths to rewrite it and re interpret it for him.
    He thanked you.
    Don’t you remember?
    He was out of context.

  90. #91 bill
    January 15, 2013

    Well, there goes this neighbourhood!…

    Life’s simply too short to attempt to sort out any of what passes for thought inside Chebbie’s skull.

  91. #92 spangled drongo
    January 15, 2013

    Bernie Dum Dums, do you have any idea what the BP is in SEQ during summer when there is no cyclone in the offing?

    The normal synoptic situation at that Christmas time of year is a high in the Tasman with ~ 10 knot SE- NE sea breezes with above normal BP of around 1018 – 1020 hPa. The barometer is above normal most of the time.

    This is the time of year when most of the national sailing championships are held because it is the most perfect sailing weather. I raced sailing dinghies and yachts there for years.

    That’s theToY the king tides arrive and that’s when I witnessed the king tides at those levels.

  92. #93 Vince Whirlwind
    January 15, 2013

    Chameleon, calm down.

    We’re not asking for any “clip” anymore, as it is now an accepted fact that the Flannery “fleeting fancy” was a work of fiction.

    What we want to know about is what you understand about Flannery’s “global organism”, which quote is not in dispute (if you’d just learn to quote properly of course).

    What we need to know is, seeing as you are apparently criticising “global organism”, what does “global organism” actually mean?

    Surely, you take care to understand something rather than simply subscribe to some group-thinking auto-criticism of selected personalities?

    So, what is this “global organism”? Please xplain?

  93. #94 Vince Whirlwind
    January 15, 2013

    Shorter Spangly: “Thousands of hard-working PhDs are wrong because the 10 minutes I spend annually gathering data on this issue is far more precise and comprehensive than whatever it is that they do with their satellites, geodetic reference points, and so forth.”

  94. #95 Bernard J.
    January 15, 2013

    The normal synoptic situation at that Christmas time of year is a high in the Tasman with ~ 10 knot SE- NE sea breezes with above normal BP of around 1018 – 1020 hPa. The barometer is above normal most of the time.

    This is the time of year when most of the national sailing championships are held because it is the most perfect sailing weather. I raced sailing dinghies and yachts there for years.

    That’s theToY the king tides arrive and that’s when I witnessed the king tides at those levels

    In other words, you have no clue what the barometric pressure was 67 years ago, and you have no evidence that barometric pressure has no influence on the 1946 tide height in your anecdote compared to last week.

    Typical Drongo – all words and no substance.

    Oh, and Drongo, I’ve watched barometric pressure go up and down like a yoyo with nary a cyclone or even a storm in site. 20 millibars or more in half an hour.

    So, once again…

    What was the barometric pressure at the time of the tide in 1946?
    What was the barometric pressure at the time of the tide last week?
    What is the difference between the two values?
    What effect would this have had on the height that the tide achieved last week compared to 1946?
    You might think that you can avoid answering these questions Drongo, but you can’t – not if you expect anyone to take your claim seriously. If barometric pressure is relevant, you need to account for it, an to show that you have done so.
    If it’s not relevant, explain why.
    And I note that you still haven’t addressed the matters of John Daly being completely and abjectly wrong in his supposed evidence to indicate that sea level had actually decreased, and that you understand why you are wrong in your support for applying linear regression as a trend descriptor for an oscillating phenomenon.
    [And don't forget that there is a long list of further factors to be considered in subsequent posts...]

  95. #96 Vince Whirlwind
    January 15, 2013

    Bernard reminds of King Cnut….there are some forces that are simply beyond the power of reason….Spangly’s studied ignorance is one of them.

  96. #97 Vince Whirlwind
    January 15, 2013

    CORRECTION:

    Shorter Spangly: “Thousands of hard-working PhDs are wrong because the 10 minutes I spend annually gathering data on this issue IN MY HEAD is far more precise and comprehensive than whatever it is that they do with their satellites, geodetic reference points, and so forth.”

  97. #98 spangled drongo
    January 15, 2013

    Berdie Num Nums, you know as well as I that that argument is hopeless. To meet the levels you require to justify your SLR over that period, each of those six or seven lawn floodings could only have occurred during a very severe cyclone and nothing like that ever occurred there in that period and even if one did it would have shown a much higher SL when compared to the rest of the floodings.

    All those floodings took place during mild, almost calm,summer weather. There wasn’t even the question of a wave breaking onto the lawn to threaten the well. Just the slow steady creep of the tide.

    If this flood had happened in the weather you require for your scenario, it would have been extremely destructive but there was no damage caused at all to the numerous boat sheds, slipways and other infrastructure.

    Pick another coconut.

  98. #99 joni
    January 15, 2013

    SD

    Wasn’t there a major flood in SE Qld in April 1946?

  99. #100 spangled drongo
    January 15, 2013

    Joni, but not at Christmas time. The reason preserving the well water by keeping the tide out was so important was the king tides arrived before the wet season and often our tanks were low or dry and well water was all we had. In those days you didn’t have tankers supplying homes with water.