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 joni
    January 15, 2013

    So when was the high tide you are talking about?

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    January 15, 2013

    Wouldn’t be because they didn’t unscrupulously but clearly outline their timeframes and methodology would it?

    That’s particularly stupid, even by your extremely low standards. The reason the unjustified claim was picked up so easily is that the methodology was presented in the paper.

    How did that get past peer review?

    Mistakes happen in pre-publication peer review. Even horribly misconceived papers like McLean at al, Soon and Baliunas can occasionally make it through.

    Post-publication peer review sorts them out.

    That’s why you are easily deluded by the occasional loud denialist press releases trumpeting the latest denialist paper to get into a peer-reviewed journal…only to be comprehensively demolished within weeks. You’ve got to look at all the evidence. Come to think of it, someone might wanna set up some sort of scientific super-committee to take a real hard look at it all and produce some sort of summary, you know?

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    January 15, 2013

    Are you the apology monitor at this blog?

    Nope. Just pointing out (in case anyone’s forgotten ;-) ) that you are an unrepentant liar – and that when you “seem to recall”, you invariable “seem” to recall wrong.

    The rest of your comment does not address your lies about what Richard Simons said.

  4. #4 Lotharsson
    January 15, 2013

    I’m positive it’s googleable, how about you give it a shot?

    Aren’t you just precious?!

    Shorter chameleon: I’m right, and it’s your job to prove I am.

  5. #5 Chris W
    January 15, 2013

    From Bernard J, a while back …

    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?

    No Bernard it really isn’t that difficult. I always learn something from reading the regular posters here – if nothing else, the clear and thoughtful arguments that you, Lotharsson, and Vince et al put up make me realise how my own thinking can be too shallow and/or misdirected at times.

    Those same points should also ram home to fair minded readers that the deniers will run like hell to avoid being nailed to a position that’s at odds with their own ridiculous bullshit-du-jour.

    I mean … Drongo, where *has* all that water gone if sea levels are dropping as you assert?

    Chameleon and Karen?? Not sure they’re functioning adults. Do they share the same brain cell or something?

    B4PM seems like he could show these people the error of their ways in a flash … but wouldn’t ever do it. Perhaps its a courage thing. Can you imagine what it must be like for a denier over at Marohasy’s when a relentlessly dick-headed nong like cohenite gives you his latest thoughts on where the professional scientists are wrong? You could only sit there, slumped in despair, knowing in your soul that while he talked the talk he actually didn’t have a clue.

    But then again, maybe contemplating the smouldering ruin of your intellectual life (once you line up with the arse-clowns) has its own rewards.

    Someone else here called it perfectly: ‘Giggling Lobotomites’, the lot of ‘em.

  6. #6 Wow
    January 15, 2013

    “but you can’t – not if you expect anyone [apart from fellow deniers who are as gullible as shit] to take your claim seriously”

    FTFY, Bernard.

  7. #7 Wow
    January 15, 2013

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

    Heck, even underachievers are thinking “He’s not really trying, is he”.

  8. #8 Wow
    January 15, 2013

    “Boy, are these two made for each other…”

    Don’t say that, Bill.

    What if they breed????

    Pissing in the gene pool is bad enough, but that’s pouring toxic sludge in the pool. And throwing in babies after it.

  9. #9 Wow
    January 15, 2013

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

    Thank you, I aim to entertain as well as educate.

    Now, any chance that you’ll learn rather than just giggle like an empty-headed bimbo?

  10. #10 Wow
    January 15, 2013

    “Well, there goes this neighbourhood!…”

    Because Joan isn’t getting the attention any more and therefore unable to shit all over the site, the idiots here have decided to take a dump of their mental diarrhea on this site to put people like Chris off reading.

  11. #11 Bernard J.
    January 15, 2013

    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.

    Drongo, there are multiple factor for us to consider. You are so recalcitrantly stupid that you are proving completely unable to answer even the first point regarding barmetric pressure.

    My intent is to ascertain how each of these factors affects the quality of your anecdotal evidence. I am doing this because without the data you can’t discount the fact that these factors will have an effect on a sampling of tides.

    I’ll give you some advance warning though. Once you stop running away like the intellectual coward that you are, I’m going to ask you about El Niño/La Niña and patterns of ocean current change. Then I’ll randomly walk through other parametres on the list, and then I’m going to try your capcity for holding on to more than one bias at a time by asking you to expand your consideration from the Brisbane-Gold Coast strip to the whole of Queensland, and then to Australia, and thence to the rest of the planet.

    But put aside for now those concerning jitters about what is coming. Just answer the questions about barometric pressure. You know, the ones that go:

    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?

    And a hint, answering with more anecdotes isn’t science. It’s just an old codger blathering about “back in the day”…

    Before I go, have you figured out why John Daly is wrong, and where all of your water went

    And for your delectation:

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/the-australian-sea-rise-not-linked-to-warming-oops-our-bad-sea-rise-is-linked-to-warming/

  12. #12 Lotharsson
    January 15, 2013

    Another post about the paper that the Australian thoroughly misrepresented to the point that one of the lead authors called them out for it – the same paper that chameleon just cited as evidence that sea level rise was not really accelerating.

    In fact, the paper which Lloyd reports on and which I have a copy of and have actually read, points out that there is now a detectable rise in the rate of sea level rise. ”In the last two decades, the rate of GMSLR (Global Mean Sea Level Rise) has been larger than the 20th-century time-mean, due to increased rates of thermal expansion, glacier mass loss, and ice discharge from both ice-sheets (Church et al., 2011).”

    Hmmmm.

    One suspects chameleon hasn’t read the paper, doesn’t know what it says, and is merely copy-paste-trolling what someone else told her. There’s quite a lot of nuance in the paper, including a discussion of natural variability complementing anthropogenic forcing for much of the 20th century.

  13. #13 Richard Simons
    January 15, 2013

    Lotharrson:

    The rest of your comment does not address your lies about what Richard Simons said.

    I had her pegged as a dishonest piece of garbage, but as I read more of her comments I’m coming to the view that, by her lights, she is honest (she will twist this to mean that I think she is honest – not the same thing at all). The problem is that her mind is a swirl of random, woolly thoughts all held with conviction but without the capacity to link them together. I suspect that she has no recollection of what she wrote and sees no reason to go back to it because it would be like reading something written by a stranger, something done back in the mists of time with no bearing on today’s ‘thoughts’.

  14. #14 chameleon
    January 15, 2013

    Richard,
    Your propensity to jump to conclusions about people based on no solid evidence makes for amusing reading.
    I really don’t care what your view of me is or what you suspect about my mental capacities.
    It is entirely irrelevant.
    Take a chill pill Richard and stick with the issues.
    Your ‘judgement’ says more about you than me.
    You missed the ‘nuance’ pages ago and someone else cleared it up for you.

  15. #15 Wow
    January 15, 2013

    Amusing that you whine about that, cham.

  16. #16 Wow
    January 15, 2013

    I guess the problem is you aren’t constitutionally or mentally able to take evidence and draw conclusions from it, you MUST to that the other way round.

  17. #17 joni
    January 15, 2013

    SD

    Still would like to know the date in 1946 of your high tide.

  18. #18 chameleon
    January 15, 2013

    Wow,
    Trust me.
    After reading most of your emotional vitriol, whatever you say I MUST do will not be what I’ll do.
    Lotharsson?
    Why set so much store with ‘peer review’ for scientific publications if they don’t get sorted out until later?
    Doesn’t that imply that ‘peer review’ mostly checks methodology?
    I have been consistently berated by some here for not listening to the professional experts.
    The added comments are we need to pay attention to the ‘published’ work from respectd organisations.
    This paper ticks all those boxes.
    However, if it helps at all, I think this one suffers from some of the same basic constraints as all the others.
    I think they’re all very interesting but they are all being used incorrectly by the surrounding politics.

  19. #19 spangled drongo
    January 15, 2013

    As I said Joni, the king tides are always around Christmas. Around the summer solstice. They are usually pretty identical [within one or two centimeters depending on influences] They are morning tides usually with only a gentle sea breeze unless there is a cyclone and/or flood occurring in which case there is wild, wooly and very memorable weather.

    There is another king tide period during the winter solstice but these are at night.

    I’m sure you can find the exact dates of all the king tides from 1946 to ~ 1953 if you feel it is so relevant.

    The ones I witnessed then were all in beautiful weather in the school holidays when we were at the height of our summer activities.

    Something you never forget.

  20. #20 Vince Whirlwind
    January 15, 2013

    SPangly doesn’t think the dates are relevant, *even though* he appears to have figured out that the biggest tides are “around” Christmas.

    Figured out *why* this might be?

    Can you explain why you think your imprecise local observations of tidal maximums trump the thousands of gauges that say sea level has increased?

  21. #21 Vince Whirlwind
    January 16, 2013

    The bottom line, Spangly, is that you haven’t included the relevant factors in your observations to make them useful.

    Perigee causes at most 5 or 6 cm difference between tides, whereas onshore winds easily add up to 50cm or more (7m in New York recently).

    By failing to record these influences, you have rendered your comparisons between King Tides invalid.

    Now you know why professional users of data have to be careful to keep “raw data” and “adjusted data” separate.

  22. #22 joni
    January 16, 2013

    Also a TC crossed the coast near Caloundra on the 23 Jan 1947 which caused a stark surge on Moreton Bay.

    Could this be what SD so clearly remembers from 65 years ago?

    Or the TC from the 28 Jan 1948?

    http://www.australiasevereweather.com/cyclones/impacts-eastcoast.pdf

  23. #23 joni
    January 16, 2013

    Stark = storm

  24. #24 spangled drongo
    January 16, 2013

    Joni, thanks for that link.

    That supports what I have been trying to tell you all here for some time.
    I’m quite aware that we had cyclones and floods during the wet seasons in the ’40s. Even record floods in some parts of the hinterland but these weren’t happening during the Christmas periods when I witnessed these king tides. I’m able to tell the difference and recall what is perfect summer sailing weather and what is unsailable cyclonic weather.

  25. #25 Vince Whirlwind
    January 16, 2013

    I wonder what the cranks would say if the scientists decided to date events using terms such as Spangly’s “christmas period” and “school holidays at the height of our summer activities”.

    “Beautiful weather” is in no way contradictory with “onshore wind”.

  26. #26 Bernard J.
    January 16, 2013

    Also a TC crossed the coast near Caloundra on the 23 Jan 1947 which caused a stark surge on Moreton Bay.

    Joni, if you revisit the old threads here at Deltoid and the ones at Marohasy’s swamp you’ll see that Drongo’s recent commented-on tides have mostly (if not entirely) occurred in the middle or near the end of January.

    And yet is appears that Drongo is still oblivious to what he’s been told for the last three years…

  27. #27 spangled drongo
    January 16, 2013

    Up to your usual distractions, Blithering Bernie?

    Recent identical king tides occurred on the 14th December 2012 and 12th January 2013, either side of the summer solstice and both prior to the middle of January.

    Also well prior to the “wet” and any cyclone influence.

    I didn’t trouble you with the first king tide result as I couldn’t get down for a personal observation but the neighbour had told me that it, too, was below the jetty bearers.

  28. #28 bill
    January 16, 2013

    Good God – it simply never stops! Alan Jones meets Sandy Stone, anyone? ;-)

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    January 16, 2013

    Why set so much store with ‘peer review’ for scientific publications if they don’t get sorted out until later?

    You’ve got it arse backwards – as someone with “academic science credentials” should know! It is that the “store” is WITHHELD from un-peer-reviewed evidence.

    That’s why:

    I have been consistently berated by some here for not listening to the professional experts.

    To start with, you’ve certainly been berated for listening to non-experts who are contradicting the overwhelming findings of the relevant experts.

    Now you’ve apparently decided that the opposite of doing that is to take any conclusion by an expert that you like and place it beyond question. That’s the same cherry-picking error applied via a different method. (What happens when two experts disagree? Your method must believe both of them! What does science actually do in this situation? Surely your academic science credentials taught you that?!)

    The store is not set, as you allege, MERELY because evidence passed pre-publication peer review. That review is just the initial filter. Passing that doesn’t mean the work is unimpeachable – as anyone with “academic science credentials”, or anyone who read my previous comment on bad peer-reviewed papers should know. It’s only the post-publication peer review and the consistency with the best inferences from ALL the evidence that give credence to the work.

    So if you look carefully you’ll find you’ve been berated for determinedly ignoring the best inferences from ALL the evidence. (And wait, wasn’t there some sort of big process where a whole bunch of scientists took a look at all the evidence and tried to summarise it for non-scientists?)

    I think they’re all very interesting but they are all being used incorrectly by the surrounding politics.

    And as I keep pointing out you are manifestly incompetent to judge the scientific merits, therefore you can’t judge whether they are being used “incorrectly” by politicians. Your delusion, however, is remarkably persistent.

  30. #30 spangled drongo
    January 16, 2013

    Vince, it’s a pity I don’t talk in that precise peer reviewed scientific jargon which is just so EXACT.

    It’s also a pity though that it’s only the jargon that’s exact but the results are so woolly.

    However, give yourself time, you never know, you might come to enjoy the sea change of the real world.

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    January 16, 2013

    Take a chill pill Richard and stick with the issues.

    Aren’t you even more just precious?!

    You lie about what he said, refuse to acknowledge it or apologise apparently on the grounds that you did no such thing, and when he graciously allows that maybe you aren’t lying when you say you didn’t on account of being delusional on that question, you tone troll him and tell him that being lied about is not an issue.

  32. #32 chameleon
    January 16, 2013

    Good grief Lotharsson!
    ZZZZZZZZZZZ!
    BORING!
    Would you like to stop projecting and jumping to conclusions about what I have decided or not decided?
    I REALLY DON’T CARE what YOU have ‘nuanced’ I have or haven’t or do or don’t or believe or disbelieve.
    Read your own post to Wow when he tried this rubbish on with you and follow your own advice for fox ache!
    SHEEEESH!

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    January 16, 2013

    Would you like to stop projecting and jumping to conclusions about what I have decided or not decided?

    Ah, the “I only quoted it, why did you infer from the context that I share that belief” gambit again. Really?! Does that actually work on anyone else?

    Have you ever wondered, seeing as you apparently have this constant run of difficulties with people misinterpreting your words, that maybe you’re not communicating your position very clearly?

    You might care to pay attention to the qualifier “apparently”, which is often used to mean “it appears to me that” – and which admits up front the possibility that the other party may have been misinterpreted, thereby offering them not only the chance but an open invitation to clarify their position so that the misinterpretation can be eliminated.

    Or you could ignore it and have a bit of a rant instead. Depends whether you’re trying to have a good faith discussion or not, I guess.

  34. #34 Vince Whirlwind
    January 16, 2013

    What’s the summer solstice got to do with it, Spangly?

    Are you confusing the solstice with perihelion, which generally occurs about 2 weeks later?

  35. #35 Bernard J.
    January 16, 2013

    Oh you’re a cack, Drongo. You really are.

    Have you never figured out why king tides usually occur in January? Vince has generously given you the clue, but I’d be interested to see if you know why the date changes from year to year…

    And I hope that you thought to post on:

    http://www.witnesskingtides.org/

    You should consider writing stories for them too – they’d be agog that your own particular sea wall and the anecdotal jetty disprove the decades-worth of work conducted by thousands of professional scientists.

    Oh, and sorry to distract you, but do you have those barometric pressures yet, or alternatively a scientific description of why barometric pressure is not relevant to your tide observations?

    And what of John Daly’s FUBAR? And the linear regression through an oscillating curve?

    And are you boning up on El Niño/La Niña and patterns of ocean current change? Vince has already hinted at the wind issue – to give you a further clue, this matter will be touched upon when we consider wave setup (and tangentially wave runup)… Your homework is piling up old man.

    Ironically, Vince’s comment on the previous page about King Cnut is itself a clue about a very good resource that would educate you about your gross misunderstanding of sea level oceanography, including setup and runup. Of course, you’d have to trust that a whole bunch of the world’s best oceanographers know their shit, so perhaps that resource wouldn’t help to make anything stick to the overheated neuron that also has to try to stop you dribbling on the keyboard.

  36. #36 Vince Whirlwind
    January 16, 2013

    Ouch. Just got out of an excessively boring 2-hour management meeting, eh, Bernard?

  37. #37 spangled drongo
    January 16, 2013

    Impressed by Green Cross are you Bern?

    Thought you might be. About your style.

    One of Mikhail’s mates.

    But I should tell ‘em just to spoil their alarmist party.

    And you never know, some people do actually pay attention to the real world in spite of their ideology even if Doltoids deny it.

  38. #38 Wow
    January 16, 2013

    ” chameleon
    January 15, 2013

    Wow,
    Trust me.”

    You have given only indications that you are entirely untrustworthy, cham.

    You arrive at a conclusion and then go looking for evidence for it. And when you think you have it, you stop looking or thinking and stick to it.

    The massively unintelligent do this all the time.

    The masive inertia of stupidity means you will not change your mind.

    Truly your worldview can only encompass what you believe in because it’s all too complicated for you to figure out unless you pick a choice and keep with it, hell or high water.

  39. #39 Wow
    January 16, 2013

    “whatever you say I MUST do will not be what I’ll do.”

    See.

    Simple solutions for the simple.

  40. #40 spangled drongo
    January 16, 2013

    I know the deltoids would have rabidly consumed this paper from John, Neil et al but just in case you didn’t: get the message from chameleon the first time here it is again:

    Abstract

    “Confidence in projections of global-mean sea-level rise (GMSLR) depends on an ability to account for GMSLR during the 20th century. There are contributions from ocean thermal expansion, mass loss from glaciers and ice sheets, groundwater extraction and reservoir impoundment. We have made progress towards solving the “enigma” of 20th-century GMSLR—that is, the observed GMSLR has been found to exceed the sum of estimated contributions, especially for the earlier decades. We propose that: thermal expansion simulated by climate models may previously have been underestimated owing to their not including volcanic forcing in their control state; the rate of glacier mass loss was larger than previously estimated, and was not smaller in the first than in the second half of the century; the Greenland ice-sheet could have made a positive contribution throughout the century; groundwater depletion and reservoir impoundment, which are of opposite sign, may have been approximately equal in magnitude. We show that it is possible to reconstruct the timeseries of GMSLR from the quantified contributions, apart from a constant residual term which is small enough to be explained as a long-term contribution from the Antarctic ice-sheet. 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.”

    Sort of sez it all really, hey Tim?

  41. #41 Lotharsson
    January 16, 2013

    So SD, since you didn’t get the message from my reply to chameleon (and do try to keep up yourself, old chap – this paper was cited here weeks ago), do you agree with the implications of that paper, which implies that sea level is going to rise faster than previously thought, and with its claim that sea level has been rising?

    Or are you, like sunspot, pretty much only capable of posting evidence that refutes your own claims, and apparently post all sorts of evidence that you don’t understand?

    And do you agree with the paper the sea level rise – which you claim isn’t happening – isn’t accelerating much, or do you agree with this demolition of their method for determining that “fact”?

  42. #42 Vince Whirlwind
    January 16, 2013

    Bizarre.
    Spangly: “I know Sea Level isn’t rising”
    Everybody: “Yes it is”
    Spangly: “No it isn’t”
    Everybody: “Show us your data”
    Spangly: “Here is a scientific paper that proves Sea level is rising”
    Everybody: “Huh?”

  43. #43 chameleon
    January 16, 2013

    Deltoids!
    You are transparent!
    The meme is ‘listen to the science’ but that is NOT what you mean at all!
    What you mean is only listen to the science that confirms your preconceived assumptions.
    If a ‘scientist’ or a ‘statistician’ offers updated information that does not confirm your bias you immediately move into ‘ritual academic humiliation’ even if they come from organisations like CSIRO!
    You have fallen into a trap deltoids.
    The ‘science’ is NOT settled.
    That was POLITICS not SCIENCE!

  44. #44 spangled drongo
    January 16, 2013

    Vince, fascinating how you interpret that. I would have thought more like:

    Doltoids: SLR is accelerating.

    Me: Not in the real world.

    Ds: Yes it is! C&W say so.

    Me: C&W have changed their minds [except when interviewed by the ABC that is]

    Ds: [hands over eyes, thumbs in ears] NO, NO, NO!

  45. #45 Vince Whirlwind
    January 16, 2013

    You’re a nutter, Chameleon, the paper in question confirms sea level rise is occurring.

    If that’s your best shot at finding supporting evidence for your denial – it’s not looking too good for your sanity, is it?

    And are you still going to nutter crank-blogs for your science information, or have you now found the BoM, CSIRO, NOAA websites that present accurate and honest information?

  46. #46 Jeff Harvey
    January 16, 2013

    “The ‘science’ is NOT settled”

    And, if blinkered people like you have your way, we will require 100% incontrovertible proof before we do anything. And of course by then it will be far too late.

    Moreover, proof of anthropogenic-related environmental problems is never absolute. There are those who argued to the bitter end that CFCs do not harm the ozone layer. Many still think it doesn’t. There are those who believe that organo-phosphate-based pesticides are not bio-accumulative and therefore should be unregulated. There are those who still think that various estimations of extinction rates are exaggerated or that tropical rain forests should not be protected. There are those who think that hyper-eutrophication of wetlands is not such a big deal, or that introducing exotic species by the truckload into non-native ecosystems is good. There are those who think that acid rain was never much of a threat, or that complete loss of Arctic ice will boost economic activity in the long term.

    So your argument is, as usual, moot. Meaningless. You once claimed to have a scientific background but you’ve blown that to bits since. Your blinkered view is that, as long as the proof is not absolute, then we should do nothing. Arguing with people like you, Chammy, is like trying to win a pissing match with a skunk. Its clear you don’t know much about environmental science, and that much of what you think is based on spending way too much time in anti-environmental or contrarian blogs. Certainly you give the impression that you’ve never read a published, peer-reviewed scientific article in your entire life.

    I published 15 articles in scientific journals last year, have 2 out this year and have 7 more in submission at the moment. I know how science works and how2 public policy should proceed. It never does by consensus. If it did, we’d be faced with even more dire environmental predictions now than we already are. This is where the precautionary principle becomes prescient. Ever hear of it? Know how it works? Do you insure your house? Your car? Why? If the chance is <1% that any damage will be incurred, why insure your valuables?

    Yet, even if there is a 10% chance that the most dire predictions of the IPCC are correct, my guess is that you will say, ' Let's wait'. At least until the chances are estimated to be what – 50%? 60%? More? Less? At what level do you think the planet's life support systems are valuable enough to insure? Or do you think, like many like-minded deniers here, that humans will persist no matter what we do in the coming years?

  47. #47 Vince Whirlwind
    January 16, 2013

    You are a deeply confused individual, Drongo.

    You deny sea level is rising.

    You present the abstract from a paper that confirms sea level is rising.

    You therefore QED’d yourself.

    As far as acceleration is concerned, assuming you understand the difference between distance/time and distance/time^2 (silly me, it’s obvious you don’t) it is perfectly visible unless inappropriate statistical methods are used, or inappropriately small samples of data are used. That’s not my opinion, that’s the result of scientific consensus, ie it is more likely that the majority of experts are right than any minority – a lesson you need to learn before placing any more of these losing bets of yours.

  48. #48 Neil White
    January 16, 2013

    Spangled Drongo

    No, C&W haven’t changed their minds. That Journal of Climate paper is talking about the 20th century. The plot at the top of this thread is of a longer period. Once you get back into the 19th century the acceleration becomes clear both visually and statistically. This becomes clearer the further back you go. Paleo data over recent centuries makes this very clear. There is a paper by Kemp et al in PNAS in 2011 that makes this very clear.

  49. #49 chameleon
    January 16, 2013

    But what is the message re anthropogenic forcing?
    I know you people are not that dense.
    Wakey wakey!
    NO ONE!!!!! Incuding Spangled D has ‘denied’ that SL changes.
    What is being questioned and tested is the amount that is attributable to human activity.
    The latest data is indicating that signal has been OVERSTATED!
    NO ONE! !!!! At this thread has claimed there is no influence from humanity.
    BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A REALLY STUPID THING TO SAY!
    The ONLY people who write that as a statement here are the people who are OVERSTATING the case FOR anthropegenic forcings.
    So in essence you are arguing with yourselves.
    JeffH has just done it again.
    Wakey wakey!

  50. #50 Vince Whirlwind
    January 17, 2013

    Chameleon:

    NO ONE!!!!! Incuding Spangled D has ‘denied’ that SL changes.

    Spangled Drongo:

    local SLs have not risen for nearly 70 years it is very likely that neither SLR nor GW is happening

    Nutters. You should have gotten married 40 years ago and produced some mixed nuts.

  51. #51 Wow
    January 17, 2013

    “But what is the message re anthropogenic forcing?”

    You can find it here:

    http://www.ipcc.ch

    You really are dense.

    “NO ONE!!!!! Incuding Spangled D has ‘denied’ that SL changes.”

    NO ONE has claimed Spanky has denied that SL changes.

    You really are very dense indeed.

    “NO ONE! !!!! At this thread has claimed there is no influence from humanity.”

    Rog does.

    But you refuse to acknowledge it has an effect. You refuse the science of how big that effect is.

    You really are extremely dense.

    “BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A REALLY STUPID THING TO SAY!”

    No denier has ever shied away from a blank statement for THAT reason.

    “the people who are OVERSTATING the case FOR anthropegenic forcings.”

    NOBODY here is OVERSTATING the case FOR anthropogenic forcings.

    You really have no clue.

  52. #52 David B. Benson
    January 17, 2013

    From

    Global temperature evolution 1979–2010
    FEATURED ARTICLE
    Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf
    Environ. Res. Lett. 6 044022 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022
    in
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4

    one derives the adjusted global temperature:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/global-temperature-update/
    wherein one sees that the trend established in the late 20th century continues in the 21st.

  53. #53 bill
    January 17, 2013

    Chebbie, now NO ONE doesn’t believe that you’re LOSING IT!

    SMILEY.

    Good grief!

  54. #54 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2013

    What you mean is only listen to the science that confirms your preconceived assumptions.

    Nope.

    It’s that Epic Comprehension Fail thing again.

    You could, of course, try and (for once) present a coherent and perhaps even cogent argument to support your hypothesis.

    I’m predicting you will not. You’re far more invested in making the accusation you have in mind than having in mind the correct accusation.

  55. #55 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2013

    NO ONE!!!!! Incuding Spangled D has ‘denied’ that SL changes.

    Not exactly – but let’s let the error slide for the sake of argument.

    If we pretend he hasn’t denied that, we’d still have to admit that he’s gone one better – he’s argued that it is falling dramatically against a huge amount of evidence that it’s rising.

    You really know how to miss a key point in favour of a less useful one!

  56. #56 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2013

    The latest data is indicating that signal has been OVERSTATED!

    Please explain how you infer that.

    You’ll probably want to examine the factors their paper considered, starting out by specifying which of those them are influenced by anthropogenic factors, and then demonstrate a plausible method for assessing the size of the anthropogenic impact on each.

    Oh, wait, I forgot – you’ve demonstrated you’re entirely incompetent at making judgements about scientific matters! Perhaps it would be simpler in this case (and in the future) if you simply pasted the URL you got your views from rather than trying to express them in your own words.

  57. #57 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2013

    Me: C&W have changed their minds [except when interviewed by the ABC that is] [and hands over my eyes and thumbs in my ears so I don't see the simple demonstration that their method for determining SLR acceleration is clearly wrong, wrong, wrong]

    Fixed that for you.

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2013

    NOBODY here is OVERSTATING the case FOR anthropogenic forcings.

    And it’s worse than that. Chameleon likes to slag off politicians “on both sides” for “inappropriately using science”.

    Look, it is true they are both using it inappropriately in some sense.

    Neither side is taking it anywhere near seriously enough. Both sides are inappropriately treating the risks as if they are much lower than the science says, and as if we can fruitfully wait for years and years more before getting really serious about dealing with it.

    This, of course, is not what chameleon meant, because she almost always misses the key point in order to push her largely ungrounded world view.

  59. #59 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2013

    So in essence you are arguing with yourselves.

    This is, and has been in the past, one of chameleon’s most unanchored statements.

    However one could see how she could think that. Anyone who doesn’t grasp most of the points in the argument might be forgiven for thinking there wasn’t an argument going on.

  60. #60 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2013

    And…just for SD and chameleon to ignore yet again, here’s a graph showing annual rates of global SLR over the last century and more – it’s the solid red curve.

    SD (and chameleon), take a look. See how it’s quite a lot higher in recent times than it was in the early part of the century? Most people would consider that “acceleration”.

  61. #61 chameleon
    January 17, 2013

    Which part of the concluding sentences in the abstract need some ‘nuancing from you Lotharsson, Wow et al?
    Here:
    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.”
    THE ISSUE IS THE ANTHROPOGENIC FORCING!
    GOT IT?
    Is there some sort of special scientific definition of WEAK OR ABSENT that we all need to be aware of?
    Whether there is a consistent trend or not:
    but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.”
    The UPDATED DATA that was used in this paper (and it has indeed ticked all the proper professional boxes to reach publication) is NOT showing a strong correlation between SLR and ANTHROPOGENIC FORCINGS!
    GOT IT?
    You or I may not agree with it BUT THAT’S WHAT THIS PARTICULAR PAPER HAS CONCLUDED!
    THEY HAVE NOT BEEN UNSCRUPULOUS OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD INFER AS SINISTER AND QUESTIONABLE!
    And please don’t forget these are genuine people who have spent a lot of time and effort. I’m quite sure they were rather shocked by the conclusions as well.
    And Vince,
    Count yourself very lucky that I simply can’t be bothered to cut and paste isolated comments from you and use them out of context throughout this thread.
    Spangled D may feel differently of course, but I would see it as a complete waste of time.
    Nitpicking little bits and pieces and IGNORING the actual point of the message is a well known and very old political practice of ‘shooting the mesenger’
    It’s crashingly boring and has nothing to do with the actual point of disagreement here.

  62. #62 bill
    January 17, 2013

    BRAIN MELT imminent ALERT!

    I can’t decide, Chebbie: is watching you attempting to participate in this debate more like watching a cat trying to play a grand piano, or a dog chew a very large and sticky toffee?

  63. #63 chameleon
    January 17, 2013

    Bill,
    I can’t decide whether watching you attempting to participate in this debate via your completely irrelevant personal comments is more like watching an octupus climbing out of a string bag or a cat on a hot tin roof?

  64. #64 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2013

    You or I may not agree with it BUT THAT’S WHAT THIS PARTICULAR PAPER HAS CONCLUDED!

    Church – you know, the guy listed as one of the authors, said in response to the claim (in The Australian) that the anthropogenic-SLR relationship was absent:

    “Sea level clearly is linked to climate change, it clearly is linked to greenhouse gases and that was in the paper quoted by The Australian. The quote is, I am sorry, inaccurate”

    Are you asserting that you understand what the paper says better than one of the authors does – apparently on the basis of your interpretation of a sentence in the abstract (which may turn out to not be supported by the paper itself)?

    Why yes, I believe you (and SD) are!

    THE ISSUE IS THE ANTHROPOGENIC FORCING!

    The main issue of the paper is an attempt to close the SLR budget.

    The implication with respect to the relationship between SLR and anthropogenic forcing appears to be (as I haven’t seen a copy of the paper yet) predicated on the claim that SLR has not accelerated much if at all, but as is clearly evident – if only by merely inspecting the graph that I pointed you to – that claim is erroneous.

    If that implication is indeed predicated on an error, then the implication is not well founded. Do you have any evidence that the implication survives the error, or are you just assuming that because the claim was made in a paper that survived pre-publication peer review that it must be correct? If their error were corrected and they had instead written:

    The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no significant acceleration, despite the over the century with increasing anthropogenic forcing largely matched by decreasing natural variability.

    …would you still be quoting it?

    Did you read and understand this article which I and others pointed people to? (Silly question, I know.) The author makes his point of view quite clear [my emphasis]:

    The Gregory et al. paper was greeted with enthusiasm in “climate skeptics” circles, since it includes the peculiar sentence:

    The implication of our closure of the budget is that a relationship between global climate change and the rate of global-mean sea-level rise is weak or absent in the past.

    The abstract culminates in a similar phrase, which can easily be misunderstood as meaning that global warming has not contributed to sea-level rise. That is wrong of course, and the claimed closure of the sea-level budget in this paper is only possible because increasing temperatures are taken into account as the prime driver of 20th Century sea-level rise.

    When read in full context, the true meaning of the statement becomes clear: it is intended to discredit semi-empirical sea-level modelling. That is both fallacious and odd, given that the paper does not even contain any examination of the link between global temperature and the rate of global sea-level rise which is at the core of semi-empirical models, and which has been thoroughly examined in a whole suite of papers (e.g. Rahmstorf et al. 2011). …

    Do you understand what this author is saying? The only way the paper you cite can close the budget – their main conclusion – is by relying on warming which we know is heavily due to anthropogenic forces over the century. And they don’t appear to have examined the link between temperature and SLR rates, so the abstract’s statement on that front does not appear to be supported by their work.

    And if you do disagree with this post (which you appear to, because you’re still pushing the conclusion from that paper that he disagrees with), on what basis is your disagreement founded?

    Did you bother to read and understand this article that I pointed you to? He’s read the actual paper. He points out that there is a:

    … lengthy discussion in the paper about why the rate is consistent, even when the contributing factors are different. … In the latter part of the 19th century, sea levels were “most likely” on the rise after earlier volcanic eruptions and low solar irradiance (which both have a mild cooling effect on the climate) caused a slow down. The paper explains that “These natural upward fluctuations of sea-level happened to lead into the start of pronounced anthropogenic warming”.

    Wait, wait, how can that be?! Your interpretation of the abstract says otherwise! That MUST trump what the research actually says, right?!

  65. #65 chameleon
    January 17, 2013

    Lotharsson at the Matt Ridley thread:
    ‘The other key point was that the scientific findings do NOT rest on what is reported about them, despite an a (perhaps rhetorical) claim to the contrary.’
    Lotharsson here:
    ‘Did you read and understand this article which I and others pointed people to? (Silly question, I know.) The author makes his point of view quite clear [my emphasis]:’

    So which lecture from the almighty Lotharsson should I bow and scrape and genufluct to?

    And Lotharsson, this one is absolutely priceless:

    If their error were corrected and they had instead written:

    The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no significant acceleration, despite the over the century with increasing anthropogenic forcing largely matched by decreasing natural variability.

    …would you still be quoting it?

    Ummmmm?
    Please forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious but:
    That’s not what it said.
    Further, if they wanted to write that then I would reasonably assume they would’ve done so. They are after all coherent, professional and respected climate scientists who work for organisations such as CSIRO.
    But INSTEAD, they concluded thus:
    but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.”
    Have you ever heard of the term ‘moot question’ or ‘redundant question”?
    I think you folks prefer to call it a ‘strawman’.
    I sincerely wish you would follow your own advice when Wow tried this nonsense on you Lotharsson.
    You were actually making a modicum of sense at that point.
    Right now you are just arguing for arguments sake.

  66. #66 Chris W
    January 17, 2013

    Indeed Bill … a *very* tough call.

    Mind you, I was at the hairdresser this afternoon and SHE reckons the cat will probably be pumping out Rachmaninoff before Chebbie gets a clue.

  67. #67 Vince Whirlwind
    January 17, 2013

    But INSTEAD, they concluded thus:
    but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.”

    Indeed, and the explanation for that result is the inappropriate use of a quadratic.
    A quadratic is a form of modelling that has been used before by people obtaining erroneous results for their climate analyses.
    If you want to understand why, you could read this:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/dont-estimate-acceleration-by-fitting-a-quadratic/

    It’s fairly likely that the writers of that paper would agree, as they aren’t the sort to fail to learn from others’ work.

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2013

    So which lecture from the almighty Lotharsson should I bow and scrape and genufluct to?

    Both of course! They’re only mutually exclusive in your fevered and increasingly unreliable imagination.

    They are both operating from the same scientific philosophy. Test the claims by looking at the evidence and logic as claimed (not merely as reported by someone else). If you have evidence of some personal competence, test them yourself to the limits of your competence. Either way, and far more importantly, find out what has happened when people who are far more competent have tested them.

    And then test their claims about the claims to the limits of your own competence. And then find out what other people of far more competence have found when they test the claims about the claims. And so on.

    Nowhere in this description is a “but it appeared in one just published peer-reviewed paper therefore you must not test it”. Especially when the one peer review paper has many arrayed against the conclusion you are touting.

    And of course, you don’t have any excuse for not already knowing this, right, because you have “academic science qualifications”?

    Please forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious but:
    That’s not what it said.

    We know.

    And we know you know.

    And we know that you know that we know.

    Etc.

    You really don’t have to say it again. That won’t make your apparent insistence on the statement’s accuracy any more convincing. Nor will it address the reasons why the statement looks like it won’t stand up to extended scrutiny, no matter how loudly you clap and chant “it won’t happen, it won’t happen”.

    If you want to discuss the reasoning that leads to the strong expectation that the statement won’t stand up to scrutiny, please do so. But asserting such discussion is moot is fallacious. (For one thing that discussion, on a more professional and formal level, embodies a large part of the scientific process.)

    Imagine, if you will, just after the publication of McLean, Carter and de Freitas – in a peer reviewed journal, no less – if you had jumped up and down and stomped your feet and insisted “but that’s what the paper concluded” about their results when people pointed out (even on blogs, fr goodness sake!) the obvious error in their methodology? How would that tantrum be looking right now, given that those issues were written up and published in a peer reviewed paper that has apparently stood the test of subsequent peer review and the paper is widely considered – by those far more competent professionals – as one of the worst peer-reviewed climate science of all time?

    Right now you are just arguing for arguments sake.

    Your mind reading attempt and its abject failure has been noted. Perhaps you should stick to things you have some demonstrated competence in. Demonstrated, as in demonstrated to other people, not imagined.

  69. #69 MikeH
    January 17, 2013

    Graham Lloyd, the climate science misrepresenter who wrote the story on sea level in The Australian that the clueless clowns above (you know who you are shapeshifter) are relying on now admits he got it wrong. The online version of the article has been pulled and the usual small apology buried in an inside page has been printed.

    http://www.readfearn.com/2013/01/the-australian-admits-it-misinterpreted-research-on-sea-level-rise-linked-to-climate-change/

  70. #70 Vince Whirlwind
    January 17, 2013

    Surely, the final nail in the coffin that contains the mouldering remains of The Australian’s credibility?

    At what point will somebody develop the gumption to stand up in one of Chris Mitchell’s management meetings and tell him (and the entire room) what an utter disaster he has visited upon this once well-respected paper?

  71. #71 Bernard J.
    January 17, 2013

    There’s a fascinating phenomenon occurring here.

    The denialist side is populated with semi-literate (and in some cases borderline illiterate) folk who, if they ever sat through a science class at all during their time at school, would have been the ones who failed or who scraped a ‘C’ or a ‘D’ at best, and who would have spitefully noogied the 95%+ achieving geeks to compensate.

    And these same folk imaginethat they can suddenly, in their Dunningly-Krugered adulthood, take on the professional scientific world and proclaim it incompetent and fraudulent, based on nothing more than their failed comprehension of school-level science and a determination that they can figure out why the laws of nature are subservient to their conservative ideology.

    Isn’t it amazing how school dunces and standover artists, even when all growed-up, still think that they can shape the laws of nature to any pretzel that suits their own opinions?

  72. #72 Vince Whirlwind
    January 17, 2013

    I think the sobering fact is that politics generously encompasses the all-growed-up school bullies, dunces, and standover artists.

    I am impressed with Nick Xenophon (from a distance), but we still get no end of Steve Fieldings, Nick Minchins, and Tony Abbots.

  73. #73 spangled drongo
    January 17, 2013

    Show us YOUR data Bernie.

    About the best YOU can do is rabbit on about how a couple of ocean-savvy scientists in 1841 put a benchmark at “near high water level”.

    Why would they do that?

  74. #74 Vince Whirlwind
    January 17, 2013

    Drongo, sea level is rising. It’s a fact. Man up and admit it.

  75. #75 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2013

    …what an utter disaster he has visited upon this once well-respected paper?

    I suspect Rupert is getting exactly what he wants, and he doesn’t see that as a disaster – he sees it as a useful deployment of a business resource.

  76. #76 spangled drongo
    January 17, 2013

    Yeah Vince, all over the world except Moreton Bay.

  77. #77 Wow
    January 17, 2013

    At last! You understand!

    It doesn’t have to rise everywhere at the same rate!

  78. #78 joni
    January 17, 2013

    But we only have your word SD, that you are remembering a king tide from 1946, and not the storm surges that I linked to earlier which occurred around the same time.

  79. #79 Bernard J.
    January 17, 2013

    Show you data, Drongo?

    I’ started referring you to data three years ago, and you’ve studiously avoided facing it the whole time.

    And anyway, you started this silliness. How about you follow through with data of your own – something more substantial than a couple of photos of some shorelines.

    I blieve that this is known as the ball being in your court. Thus far all you’ve managed are faults and a complete inability to return serves.

  80. #80 Lotharsson
    January 17, 2013

    SD quotes “nullius in verba” – but then expects everyone to take his word for it.

    I don’t think he sees the issue with that.

  81. #81 spangled drongo
    January 17, 2013

    As I have already said, my data was always obtained prior to any of the cyclones which occur from late summer through to winter. If you wanted to verify this you would have to talk to other old residents.

    But you Ds have no data, only denial.

    But you embrace the gravy meter.

  82. #82 Neil White
    January 17, 2013

    Spangled drongo

    According to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/tc.shtml) the Australian tropical cyclone season typically runs from 1 November to 30 April. This is very different to your “late summer through to winter”. Please enlighten me as to what I am missing.

    Perhaps you could also enlighten us to what “But you embrace the gravy meter.” is about.

  83. #83 Vince Whirlwind
    January 17, 2013

    It seems Spangled Drongo’s incredibly precise data collection on Cyclone dates has been falsified.
    Where does this leave his incredibly precise data collection on historical sea levels, I wonder?

  84. #84 chameleon
    January 17, 2013

    Shorter Lotharsson,
    ‘that won’t make your apparent insistence that the paper doesn’t ‘nuance’ correctly according to Lotharsson’s interpretation go away.
    Otherwise you will hurt Vince’s Brain.
    You aren’t getting it are you?
    It is yet ANOTHER paper that presents the data yet ANOTHER way.
    They are all interesting.
    They will all probably have pieces of the climate puzzle in them.
    They are ALL open to interpretation Lotharsson.
    Typically, instead of actually considering the findings we have the extremists all ‘intellectually nuancing’.

  85. #85 Vince Whirlwind
    January 18, 2013

    Shorter Lotharsson,
    ‘that won’t make your apparent insistence that the paper doesn’t ‘nuance’ correctly according to Lotharsson’s interpretation go away.

    WTF is that supposed to mean, Chameleon?

    “Shorter” means….er…”Shorter”, and yet the (apparently meaningless) sentence that follows is *longer* than either of Lotharsson’s previous 2 posts.

    I’m amazed you manage to even feed yourself.

  86. #86 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    …instead of actually considering the findings …

    Good grief!

    Look, you should perhaps refrain from using words whose meaning you don’t understand.

    Like considering.

    My comments are a result of my consideration of the paper.

  87. #87 Bolt For PM
    January 18, 2013

    Good grief, this thread is still running! After a quick scan it seems there is some commentary about the Church and White paper which I’ve not read, nor have I read the various articles/commentary about it. But is the the view here that this paper is erroneous in one or more of its conclusions?

    My apologies for not doing my own bloody research as Bernard so delightfully puts it – I have a day job. And my wife is always happy to explain what my night jobs are.

    I’m not after anything more than a potted summary, but if that’s too much to ask I will try to make the time, but it’s hard. there is after all so much to read at WUWT including Willis’ latest marvellous offerings.

    Is there a link to the paper anywhere? Has this paper been discussed, or was it referenced in Church and White?
    http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf

  88. #88 Vince Whirlwind
    January 18, 2013

    Why would you read anything at WUWT?

    It’s a disinformational crank-site run by a liar in the pay of Heartland.

  89. #89 chek
    January 18, 2013

    “there is after all so much to read at WUWT including Willis’ latest marvellous offerings.”

    Yeah, why wouldn’t you get your “science” from a massage parlour crank, posting on the weblog (not even a website) of an exposed fossil fuel industry shill’s site, rather than from accredited scientists. It’s no doubt the reason the IPCC has it all wrong, and you whackos are so confident in your stupidity.

  90. #90 Lotharsson
    January 18, 2013

    The paper, as has been linked a number of times here, has been discussed at RealClimate as part of the two-part article. There were also some links posted to some discussion at readfearn.net.

    It would not surprise me if some or all of the core conclusions were ultimately found to be valid, although there appears to be an ongoing disagreement about the different methods of predicting sea level rise and this paper plays a role in that.

    Key parts of the couple of sentences that have been trumpeted around the denialosphere and The Australian (which has now retracted the article in question) appear to be pretty clearly based on faulty methodology, as the tutorial linked from one of those RealClimate articles shows.

    Do you realise there’s this “Google” thing that will help you find this stuff?

  91. #91 Vince Whirlwind
    January 18, 2013

    Google is dangerous if your intention is not to inform yourself but to find only reinforcement for preconceived notions.

    That’s why WUWT is so good – not much danger of encountering any information over there.

  92. #92 David B. Benson
    January 18, 2013
  93. #93 Chris O'Neill
    January 18, 2013

    I will try to make the time, but it’s hard. there is after all so much to read at WUWT

    Like saying, there are so many ways to waste your life.

  94. #94 spangled drongo
    January 18, 2013

    “the Australian tropical cyclone season typically runs from 1 November to 30 April. This is very different to your “late summer through to winter”. Please enlighten me as to what I am missing”

    Neil, that might be the BoM’s idea of when cyclones arrive but we have had many outside that period. As late as July.

    In this period in 1967 Gold Coast beaches were seversly eroded and I was involved in dumping car bodies onto beaches along with tens of thousands of sandbags to stop high rise buildings from fallig into the sea.

    Yet we have never had a cyclone affect Moreton Bay prior to January in the last 67 years.

    Even in the coral sea it is rare to get a cyclone in December let alone November.

    So apparently you have been missing quite a bit.

  95. #95 Vince Whirlwind
    January 18, 2013

    Lol.
    According to SPangly, he knows more about cyclones than BoM does.

  96. #96 spangled drongo
    January 18, 2013

    Did you check those dates Vince?

    Or, like Berdie Num Nums and Neil, is your data MIA too?

  97. #97 Bernard J.
    January 18, 2013

    Did you check those dates Vince?

    Or, like Berdie Num Nums and Neil, is your data MIA too?

    Drongo,

    I directed you to the CSIRO’s work years ago. As you seem to be having profound difficulty locating it, here’s the URL:

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_data_cmar.html

    You, on the other hand, have produced nothing more than two happy-snaps backed by no relevant data, and some second hand “Just So” stories that are just as unevidenced as your holiday photos.

    Today I had the pleasure of listening to Professor Jean Palutikof, amongst a number of other IPCC lead authors. She is located in your neck of the woods Drongo, only a few minutes drive from your legendary river wall. I think that she would be most surprised to hear your story that global sea levels are decreasing, and that the consensus science is all a fraud and a scam.

    If you haven’t the courage to provide your data to us, please explain why you don’t at least take the walk over to set her straight, and to overturn consensus science in the process. She’s very nice, and I am sure that she would be interested in your incomparable expertise.

  98. #98 spangled drongo
    January 18, 2013

    “Today I had the pleasure of listening to Professor Jean Palutikof”

    And did you, perchance Bernie, ask her if the city in which you say she lives, with its enormous sea frontage, is producing any evidence of SLR, let alone accelerated SLR?

    Or are trivial details like that not discussed in those upper levels of La La Land when the gravy meter is being cranked up to the max?

    IOW, did she show you her data?

  99. #99 Bernard J.
    January 18, 2013

    Drongo, when one is rubbing shoulders with a foyer full of the world’s most eminent cliamtologists, one does not ask then about a river wall in the Nerang or a lighthouse in Moreton Bay. You are simply not that important, or relevant – please check your ego at the door.

    However, Jean works a few blocks from your wall on Chevron Island, and she is very accessible for those who wish to learn. If you have a correction for climatologists and oceanographers, who better to speak with than an IPCC lead author who works around the corner, and who is intimately familiar with the subject you pretend to overturn.

    Let us know how you go with the conversation.

  100. #100 Vince Whirlwind
    January 18, 2013

    is your data MIA too?

    Did Spangly just ask me for *data*?

    Ha HA AHAHHAHAHAHAH. That’s so funny.

Current ye@r *