Sea level rise acceleration

You only have to look at the graph below showing sea level rise since 1880 to see that it has accelerated from about 1mm/year at the end of the 19th century to about 3mm/year at present.(from CSIRO).

CSIRO_GMSL_figure

If you take a closer look at recent sea level rise you’ll see that it has been very consistent, only deviating from the trend line by about 10mm at any time.

sl_ns_global

 

So if you were unscrupulous, and wanted to try to make it look like sea level rise had decelerated what could you do? You could split the series at a point where sea level was above the trend line and compare trends before and after.  this is what Klaus-Eckart Puls did (green line added by me):

Puls_1

Of course, you could achieve the opposite effect by splitting at  a point in time where sea level was below the trend line.  Note that the trend for the first half, 3.5mm/year isn’t significantly different from the overall trend and that the latest measurement lies on the trend fitted to the first part of the data (the green line above).

Naturally, Andrew Bolt was taken in, claiming that sea level rise was slowing, oblivious to the fact that this contradicted his earlier claims that sea level had stopped rising.

Comments

  1. #1 Vince Whirlwind
    January 18, 2013

    Bernard, did they have a secret session in which all 400 of them agreed to conspire to invent a climate catastrophe with which to help usher in a new era of UN Global Government?

    It’s either that or the people that infest WUWT are raving loons, one or the other, so I’m just checking.

  2. #2 spangled drongo
    January 18, 2013

    “Drongo, when one is rubbing shoulders with a foyer full of the world’s most eminent cliamtologists, one does not ask …”

    Of course not Bernie, I understand perfectly.

    You couldn’t possibly look them in the eye and ask them what they have actually witnessed and what they really believe.

    It just wouldn’t do. Too, too embarrassing!

    Besides, it might even cause the gravy meter to malfunction.

    Yes Vincie, I did.

    Do you happen to have ever wiped the window clean enough to peer outside to garner a little real life experience for yourself?

  3. #3 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    Well, here are some “data” that resemble yours in quality and usefulness:
    I’ve been going to the same beach since I was a child and I’ve noticed that more and more sand is washing away at high tides now than ever before. Obviously sea level is rising.

    Now, I wonder why the taxpayer bothers funding clever people with PhDs to answer complex questions when everybody could just listen to Spangly and my “data” to learn the truth?

  4. #4 Wow
    January 19, 2013

    “I’m amazed you manage to even feed yourself.”

    She has a nurse to do that for her.

  5. #5 spangled drongo
    January 19, 2013

    You’ve actually been to a BEACH, Vincie?

    I’m impressed. Tell us more.

  6. #6 spangled drongo
    January 19, 2013

    When it comes to data, you warmists are very reluctant to abandon your alarmist views particularly where research money is dependant upon these views. You find it very hard to let go and often do some very unscientific things to push your paradigm.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/more-on-giss-tampering/

    Data fiddling is only part of your skulduggery with the gravy meter.

  7. #7 bill
    January 19, 2013

    My Gravy Meter suggests you’re well into the brown there, Spangly. Deep in it, in fact…

  8. #8 Bernard J.
    January 19, 2013

    You couldn’t possibly look them in the eye and ask them what they have actually witnessed and what they really believe.

    It just wouldn’t do. Too, too embarrassing!

    As it happens we did speak about the veracity of the global climatological and oceanographic data. Having the chance to speak to six lead authors really puts things in perspective – I highly recommend it. We also spoke about denialism and about the inability of people such as you to allow yourselves to be informed, and to resist any attempts to do so.

    And you do have the opportunity to visit your local IPCC lead aurthor. Not everyone has a top-level IPCC scientist working 5 minutes from their home, and given your rabid obsession with sea level rise the first thing that you should be doing is rushing over to speak with Jean Palutikof and educating either her or yourself.

    You have no more excuses you daft old bugger. All that you have is a choice:

    1) address the questions that have accumulated over three years,

    2) go for a walk around your very own corner and confront the Evil Empire that you believe is trying to perpetrate the Greatest Conspiracy of All Time, or

    3) continue to bleat impotently on the blogosphere and thereby prove that you have nothing do but promulgate but hearsay and pseudiscientic mythology.

    Note that the above choices are not actually mutually exclusive.

  9. #9 Bernard J.
    January 19, 2013

    Crap.

    You couldn’t possibly look them in the eye and ask them what they have actually witnessed and what they really believe.

    It just wouldn’t do. Too, too embarrassing!

    As it happens we did speak about the veracity of the global climatological and oceanographic data. Having the chance to speak to six lead authors really puts things in perspective – I highly recommend it. We also spoke about denialism and about the inability of people such as you to allow yourselves to be informed, and to resist any attempts to do so.

    And you do have the opportunity to visit your local IPCC lead aurthor. Not everyone has a top-level IPCC scientist working 5 minutes from their home, and given your rabid obsession with sea level rise the first thing that you should be doing is rushing over to speak with Jean Palutikof and educating either her or yourself.

    You have no more excuses you daft old bugger. All that you have is a choice:

    1) address the questions that have accumulated over three years,

    2) go for a walk around your very own corner and confront the Evil Empire that you believe is trying to perpetrate the Greatest Conspiracy of All Time, or

    3) continue to bleat impotently on the blogosphere and thereby prove that you have nothing do but promulgate but hearsay and pseudoscientic mythology.

    Note that the above choices are not actually mutually exclusive.

  10. #10 Lotharsson
    January 19, 2013

    Spangled Drongo still hasn’t addressed the irony of his (3 year long) plea to “take my word for it, damnit!”…whilst ritually holding up crossed fingers and chanting “nullius in verba” when presented with actual data…

    …and whilst taking the word of non-scientists that the scientific data has been fraudulently altered or shows something other than what the scientists say.

    Cognitive dissonance – ur doin it rite.

  11. #11 spangled drongo
    January 19, 2013

    “As it happens we did speak about the veracity of the global climatological and oceanographic data.”

    I bet you played a blinder, Bern.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/1/18/actons-blind-eye.html

  12. #12 spangled drongo
    January 19, 2013

    Lothe, at least my data is pier revewed.

  13. #13 spangled drongo
    January 19, 2013

    “As it happens we did speak about the veracity of the global climatological and oceanographic data.”

    So level with me Bern, was Jean sceptical of accelerated SLR?

    And what about you? After 1700 odd comments you really haven’t said anything. I’d like to know just where you stand on this.

    Like John and Neil, you seem to say different things at different times to different people.

  14. #14 spangled drongo
    January 19, 2013

    Does Jean support JH on this or is she a bit sceptical, like me.

    And I’m still waiting for your opinion.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/hansen-1986-two-degrees-warming-by-2006-hottest-in-100000-years/

  15. #15 spangled drongo
    January 19, 2013

    “As it happens we did speak about the veracity of the global climatological and oceanographic data.”

    And did you broach the subject of adjustments with her?

    And whether she also supports them?

    The reason I ask is that I don’t want to go back over old ground:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/?s=nasa+giss+adjustments

  16. #16 FrankD
    January 19, 2013

    Spangles – Can you just refresh my memory (because I can’t be fussed for the moment trawling through 1700 posts in this thread, and it might have been elsewhere anyway) – did you actually witness the 1947 high tide, or just see the after-effects (high water mark or whatever)? Do you recall if it occurred during daytime or nighttime?

  17. #17 Wow
    January 19, 2013

    “I’m impressed”

    Since you’re impressed by Watts’ bollocks, this is rather damning with faint praise from you.

  18. #18 Wow
    January 19, 2013

    “or is she a bit sceptical, like me.”

    No.

  19. #19 Bernard J.
    January 19, 2013

    Drongo says:

    …blah blah… I’m too scared to speak to a real, actual scientist… blah blah… look, squirrel!… blah blah… would you like to buy some denialist link-crap?… blah blah…

    Give it up you doddering old fool.

    You have no excuse anymore – go speak with Jean Palutikof if you really believe your own fairytale, or just shut the hell up and stop pretending that you are the fairy godmother of denialism, parading around as you do in your tutu of sparkly pseudoscientific fishnet.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – even Tim Curtin, master of scientific clangers, had the guts to attempt to put his case to the profession, and to put up evidence, no matter how tenuous it always ended up being.

    You have nothing more than a couple of holiday snaps that don’t mean anything at all.

    You are intellectualyl impotent.

  20. #20 Jeff Harvey
    January 19, 2013

    Here we go again, exactly the point I was making on one of the Ridley threads in response to Chameleon’s jibe about many on Deltoid who resort to conspiracy theories. Yet Drongo follows the denier script:

    “When it comes to data, you warmists are very reluctant to abandon your alarmist views particularly where research money is dependant upon these views”

    No evidence needs ever be produced to support this crap. Yet the deniers use it all the time. I could provide plenty of evidence where prominent deniers are on the corporate/think tank payroll. But the deniers abhor this, arguing that a person’s views should based on their science and not on those who pay them. Then these hypocrites go back to the grant funding canard.

    Bernard is right. Drongo belongs with Jonas and other like-minded nincompoops.

  21. #21 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    esearch money is dependant upon these views.

    Yep – it’s those scientists driving around in Ferraris and flying to the Caymans for their weekends we have to worry about….

    He seems to admit that it is conceivable that money could buy corrupt scientific opinions. So he’s halfway to perhaps realizing what the nutter crank blogs by Bishop Hill and Steven Goddard (FFS! Goddard, Spangly?) are all about.

  22. #22 spangled drongo
    January 20, 2013

    FrankD, yes I witnessed more than one king tide of that era [between 1946 & 1953] that came over the lawn.

    They invariably arrived mid morning in near-perfect summer weather in the early part of the school holidays when sailing and boating activities were at their peak.

    I don’t remember ever getting out of bed to witness the winter king tides at night.

  23. #23 spangled drongo
    January 20, 2013

    “You are intellectualyl impotent.”

    Happy to admit it Bern [whatever it means], hence my nom de plume.

    We are all fools Bern but the biggest fools are the ones that fool themselves.

    But it is interesting that with all these comments from you intellectualyl potentates, you do not provide any observations whatsoever of your own.

    At least you, Bern, have threatened to muster up some of your mates’ obs over the years [still waiting for those] but the rest of you Ds have got zippo, zilch to put forward.

    I can only assume that when such intellectual marvels haven’t got two observations between them to rub together, if anyone presents anything concrete to challenge their ideology, the only defence they have left is insults.

    That and the gravy meter.

    “arguing that a person’s views should based on their science and not on those who pay them.”

    If only, Jeff, if only. You still don’t get it do you?

  24. #24 David B. Benson
    January 20, 2013

    Tide gauge at the Battery, New York Harbor:
    http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=okx&gage=batn6

  25. #25 spangled drongo
    January 20, 2013

    And Bern, I’m more than happy to speak to any scientist. I was just sounding you out on both your and her sceptical capacity.

    Like answering if you [and she] are sceptical of accelerated SLR???

    It’s you that seems to want to run from reality.

  26. #26 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013
  27. #27 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    Now, show us yours.

  28. #28 spangled drongo
    January 20, 2013

    Very good Vincie. Not your data but at least something good.

    What do you reckon it’s telling you Vincielove?

  29. #30 spangled drongo
    January 20, 2013

    “My Gravy Meter suggests you’re well into the brown there, Spangly. Deep in it, in fact…”

    Seeing as I don’t use a gravy meter bill, I don’t have that problem but for those who do, I suppose it’s one of the risks you take.

  30. #31 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    So….no data then Spangles?

    You can show us your code at least, right?

  31. #32 spangled drongo
    January 20, 2013

    Here’re my data Vincie, seeing as you don’t seem to be able to read.

    They agree very well with yours.

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/01/king-tide-not-so-high/

  32. #33 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    …you do not provide any observations whatsoever of your own.

    You’ve ignored or actively denied most of the observations previously put to you. That makes it easy to lie by claiming “you do not provide any observations of your own”.

  33. #34 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    Nice photo, Spangles, but where are your data?

    Where is your code?

    You are making assertions on sea level and as far as I can make out you have nothing whatsoever to backup those assertions.

    Here is the story, as revealed by over 1 million measurements per year, each measurement accompanied by contextual data on barometric pressure, etc, etc:

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

    I doubt there is an alternate reality sufficiently bizarre enough that your alternative data would merit anymore than than a brief snort of laughter.

    You are a ridiculous joke, as are the cranks and nutters who egg you on over at Marohasy’s.

  34. #35 spangled drongo
    January 20, 2013

    Stop frothing Vincie and tell me what “your” data says.

  35. #36 bill
    January 20, 2013

    Golly, the silly old sod is so far gone he can’t even read a chart!

    The Seaside Twilight Home for the Terminally Bewildered beckons…

  36. #37 bill
    January 20, 2013

    Have to say I loved the one where he wouldn’t be prepared to talk to an expert in the field unless that expert was prepared to demonstrate that they were sufficiently ‘skeptical’ in advance: i.e. concede he’s right!

    Seriously, you couldn’t make it up.

    I’ll bet he has an adoring audience at Marohasy’s. I sincerely hope he continues to do so – the more time they spend determining the height of the excrements in Paradise the better…

  37. #38 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    Spangly’s getting forgetful – here it is again:
    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

    As I said, based on well over a million data points per annum, as opposed to your effort which seems to be based on…nothing, as far as I can see.

  38. #39 spangled drongo
    January 20, 2013

    “Here is the story, as revealed by over 1 million measurements per year”

    Oh, the irony is exquisite, Vincie. Your data doesn’t agree with that gravy meter. And neither does mine.

    I rest my case.

  39. #40 joni
    January 20, 2013

    The CSIRO data versus SD’s anecdotes from >65 years ago.

    I know which I trust.

  40. #41 bill
    January 20, 2013

    I rest my case.

    We should be so lucky!

  41. #42 spangled drongo
    January 20, 2013

    Joni, bill, Vincie, Bern and Lothe would trust the gravy meter everytime rather than their lying eyes.

    Wonder why???

    That’s OK. Disclosures for Doltoids are purely voluntary.

    But tell me, is it more conflict of interest than conflict of ideology?

  42. #43 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    Dunno, Spangly, you tell us why you want to ignore reality and hide behind your flimsy screen of nonsense.

  43. #44 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    Joni, bill, Vincie, Bern and Lothe would trust the gravy meter everytime rather than their lying eyes.

    Ah, SD, I see you’re still resorting to lying about the difference in our positions.

    The humour of watching you do it kinda wore off a while back – and it’s clear you refuse to think and refuse to take on board additional evidence.

    I think I’ll leave you to it for a while.

  44. #45 joni
    January 20, 2013

    SD

    Simple, give us the actual real dates of your tides.

  45. #46 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    …and the windspeed and direction, and the barometric pressure for each of your measurements.

    The competent experts wouldn’t pretend their data was worth looking at without at least that much.

  46. #47 spangled drongo
    January 20, 2013

    You-all don’t get how amazing it is that you can keep reading the gravy meter and convince yourselves that it is the real world without going outside and checking.

    Even when Vince quotes Fort Denison as his data he doesn’t read what it’s telling him.

    And you think I’m in denial

  47. #48 joni
    January 20, 2013

    SD

    And still you do not want to give us dates.

    I wonder why?

  48. #49 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    … or measurements even.

    Because he doesn’t have any.

  49. #50 Wow
    January 20, 2013

    Anthony Watts’ money is dependent on continuing the crusade for the Oil industry.

    Monckton’s money is dependent on continuing to say what the picked audience wants to hear.

    MkIntyre’s job depends on the Fossil Fuel industry continuing to work at peak capacity.

  50. #51 Jeff Harvey
    January 20, 2013

    SD, I’d like you to provide proof that research funding is a gravy train that relies on environmental scares. I am fed up with this crap – yet you and other deniers use it as your get-out-of-jail-free card.

    I’m more than certain that if I was a climate scientist who bucked the consensus then I’d not have much trouble getting big bucks from various corporate sources. But of course – that’s already the case. Its been proven time and time again that many of the most prominent deniers are on the corporate payroll and/or are affiliated with right wing think tanks that act as mouthpieces for industry.

    Your claim is based 100% on nothing more than blind guessing.

  51. #52 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    Scientists will say anything to make money. They just love their flash cars and natty suits.

    Uh, hang on – that’s Real Estate agents. Scientists wear corduroy pants and drive Toyota Camry stationwagons. Because they love money so much.

    There are loads of PhDs where I work but only the lucky ones crack even 80Kpa.

    They are very clever people, Spangly, and if they wanted to lie for a living, they’d be working in sales earning 300Kpa no problems at all.
    That’s not what they choose to do.

  52. #53 FrankD
    January 20, 2013

    Joni, I thought your question was the most interesting bit of what has otherwise been 1800 posts of whack-a-mole, so I did some digging and I believe I can answer your question on behalf of the Spangled one. Excuse the digression, I hope to head off later arguments.

    Despite Spangly invoking the solstice more times than your average druid, “king tides” (I shudder at the term), have nothing to do with the solstice. They are related to the perigee (closest approach of the moon) and the perihelion (earths closest approach to the sun). The perihelion currently occurs on Jan 5th, while the perigee of the moon is variable – of course, it occurs once a month, but how close it gets varies. Closer perigees are seen around mid-summer and mid-winter, and cause higher tides at those times.

    Now, if Spangles actually wanted to answer your question, he could check the 1947 tide times in the archives of his local rag (what’s that, the Examiner?), but he’s clearly unwilling to do that, so all I’m offering here is an informed guess, based on the fact the the “king tide” occurs at or near the full or new moon that is closest the the nearest perigee that occurs close to perihelion. (phew!).

    1. Perihelion precesses, advancing by one day every 58 years, so in 1947, perihelion occurred on 3/1/47 a little before midnight.
    2. The nearest full or new moon to that time was the full moon a bit before 5 am UTC on 7/1/47.
    3. Importantly, the moon also reached perigee at 13:37 UTC on 6/1/47 (about 15 hours before full moon). A small offset between full/new and perigee means a higher tide, and 15 hours is a relatively small offset.
    4. The closest perigee at that time had occurred around 9 December ’46. Nevertheless, the January perigee was quite a quite a close one, which again would have made for a still higher tide.

    Now, all those times are UTC, and you’d need to add 10 hours for Gold Coast time which means perigee would have occurred just before midnight on 6/1/47 and astronomical full moon would have occurred at 15:00 local on the 7th (ie it was more or less full on the nights of the 6th-7th and 7th-8th). These three factors occurring so close together would have made for a very high tide – a king tide, in fact – probably on the morning of the 7th.

    So, I don’t believe that the 1947 summer king tide was the same event to the cyclone driven flood of 23/1/47. That flood coincided with the next New Moon, but the moon was a little past apogee (furthest distance from earth) and further past perihelion, so while the cyclone did coincide with a spring tide, it would have been a relatively low one (as a spring tide, it was still quite high, obviously).

    However, even though they were seperate events, that cyclone drove a half-metre storm surge into Moreton Bay, plus a lot of flooding on the Nerang, and there is no way on gods green earth that those combined with the next spring tide could have been lower at Spanglies benchmark than the king tide two weeks earlier.

    So while I’m prepared (personally of course, YMMV) to stipulate that the king tide occurred on the 7th and the cyclone arrived on the 23rd, I do not believe for a nanosecond that the former was higher than the latter. It’s my considered opinion that the Drongo, who must be rising 80 if he was there in 47, has simply conflated the two events at a distance of 60+ years. All of us will probably find ourselves doing the same if we reach that age.

    Of course, Spangles could have saved a lot of pointless discussion for the regulars, and a hour’s googling for me, by simply adducing some evidence to support his argument. But clearly thats not how the sill old bugger rolls. I thought Bill’s (?) characterisation as Alan Jones meets Sandy Stone was bang on.

    But even if by some miracle, the January ’47 king tide was higher than the storm surge, he has still failed to address two other points that vitiate his whole argument:
    1.It is well known that the MSL is rising less than average along the south coast of Queensland, at less than 2 mm per year and above average at other places (13 mm/yr in the Gulf of Carpentaria for one). So his notion (absolutely critical to his argument) that sea level rises uniformly is unadulterated bollocks, a point he has steadfastly ignored.
    2.Since 1947 repeated dredging has been done near his precious benchmark, with 1.5 metres being taken off the bottom after the 1974 (cyclone-driven) floods almost overtopped the nearest bridge. Again, this is something he has steadfastly ignored (or rather brushed off with his “agressively seeking equilibrium” twaddle.

  53. #54 joni
    January 20, 2013

    Thanks Frank. Good work… now let’s see if SD comes back with an actual date of his anecdotes.

  54. #55 spangled drongo
    January 20, 2013

    FrankD, Joni, Vince et al. Go back and read my times of obs relative to any cyclonic influences. The measurements too.

    Please pay attention.

    And note that east coast tide gauges support my claims.

    “There are loads of PhDs where I work but only the lucky ones crack even 80Kpa”

    You make my point very well Vince.

  55. #56 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Your “times”, as in , “some time in late January”?

    Which kind of high-precision scientific instrument are you using for these “measurements”?

  56. #57 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013

    “Your “times”, as in , “some time in late January”?”

    Some are determined to be simply dumb, others, fradulent:

    “Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications
    Ferric C. Fang R. Grant Steen and Arturo Casadevall

    PNAS PNAS 2012 109 (42) 16751-16752; doi:10.1073/iti4212109
    “Abstract
    A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.

  57. #58 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013

    If only someone would do an investigative paper like that on climate science.

    Think how much money it would save the taxpayer.

  58. #59 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013
  59. #60 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013
  60. #61 bill
    January 21, 2013

    Old man, you and the plot have permanently parted company. Stop embarrassing yourself.

  61. #62 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    When Spangly finally retracts his nonsense, it won’t be because of errors OR fraud: it will be because he had no data whatsoever in the first place.

    How do you reckon those biomedical researchers would have go ton if they published their stuff based on the kind of vague non-information you seem to rely on, Spangly?

  62. #63 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Additionally, you’re still relying on nutter crank-blog, WUWT for your infotainment?

    When do you get a clue?

  63. #64 chek
    January 21, 2013
  64. #65 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    What’s Spangly on about?

    I’m not about to risk my sanity by clicking on a link to that nutter crank blog run by Anthony Watts and called WUWT.

  65. #66 Bernard J.
    January 21, 2013

    Bernard, did they have a secret session in which all 400 of them agreed to conspire to invent a climate catastrophe with which to help usher in a new era of UN Global Government?

    I could answer that Vince, but then I’d have to neuralyze everyone reading this thread.

  66. #67 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013

    Vol 1, Issue 1, hey chek?

    Looks like he had to start his own journal to get it published.

    How embarrassing.

  67. #68 bill
    January 21, 2013

    Ah, Spangly has the party line down-pat already!

  68. #69 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013

    Can’t handle a few facts from Tony Watts, hey Vince?

    How about your mates from UEA then?

    As in: “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is”

    How’s that workin’ out for ya?

  69. #70 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013

    Good to see you read a little wider these days, biil.

    At least you’re one up on Vince.

  70. #71 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Why would you use the word “facts” and the name “Anthony Watts” in the same sentence?

    Isn’t Watts the clueless TV weatherman who collected hundreds of photos of weather stations in order to show they were skewed by UHI only to find the effect was the total opposite from what he had been claiming?
    Watts’ entire thesis was blown out of the water by his own research.
    Surprised he’s still limping along – even more surprised anybody still visits his pointless blog.

  71. #72 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013

    “Isn’t Watts the clueless TV weatherman who collected hundreds of photos of weather stations in order to show they were skewed by UHI only to find the effect was the total opposite from what he had been claiming?”

    You mean Vince, you were so stupid as to believe all that “BEST” scatology?

    For example, do you actually BELIEVE that an asphalt airfield in the Arctic where they keep the thermometer WON’T register a warmer temperature than the surrounding ice and snow?

    Even NOAA didn’t believe that shit even though they wouldn’t admit it and have just completed studies on it:

    “Biases Associated with Air Temperature Measurements near Roadways and Buildings

    Wednesday, 9 January 2013: 9:15 AM Room 15 (Austin Convention Center)

    John Kochendorfer, NOAA, Oak Ridge, TN; and C. B. Baker, E. J. Dumas Jr., D. L. Senn, M. Heuer, M. E. Hall, and T. P. Meyers

    Abstract

    Proximity to buildings and paved surfaces can affect the measured air temperature. When buildings and roadways are constructed near an existing meteorological site, this can affect the long-term temperature trend. Homogenization of the national temperature records is required to account for the effects of urbanization and changes in sensor technology. Homogenization is largely based on statistical techniques, however, and contributes to uncertainty in the measured U.S. surface-temperature record. To provide some physical basis for the ongoing controversy focused on the U.S. surface temperature record, an experiment is being performed to evaluate the effects of artificial heat sources such as buildings and parking lots on air temperature. Air temperature measurements within a grassy field, located at varying distances from artificial heat sources at the edge of the field, are being recorded using both the NOAA US Climate Reference Network methodology and the National Weather Service Maximum Minimum Temperature Sensor system. The effects of the roadways and buildings are quantified by comparing the air temperature measured close to the artificial heat sources to the air temperature measured well-within the grassy field, over 200 m downwind of the artificial heat sources.”

    Do keep up. The chickens are coming home.

    Don’ make a bigger idiot of yourself than you can possibly help. I know that’s hard, though.

  72. #73 Bernard J.
    January 21, 2013

    Drongo says:

    We are all fools Bern but the biggest fools are the ones that fool themselves.

    That’s what we been trying to tell you for three years.

    But you simply persist in fooling yourself, no matter how many times it’s explained to you.

    But it is interesting that with all these comments from you intellectualyl [sic] potentates, you do not provide any observations whatsoever of your own.

    I’ve directed you many times to data, and to my graphing of data. You just ignore it because to confront it would cause that gear-crunching cognitive dissonance that you’re so desperate to avoid.

    However, in the spirit of your standard of “data collection”, I can relate this little anecdote:

    A few years ago the January tides were such that the jetty at the lab where I worked was soaked by calm seas. The jetty was built in the first half of last century (just like yours) and the old fishers around here that I’ve spoken with reckon that it used to take a stiff nor’easter/sou’easter to wet the jetty.

    This also begs the question applicable to both your jetty and mine – why would the builders construct the height so that the jetties were effectively flooded on high tides at least twice a year? My jetty was a working commercial fishing jetty, and the last thing that the fishers who use it today want is the bloody mess that they have to put up with if they’re working on the jetty at high tide.

    Seems to me that the tide you keep harping on about wasn’t a run-of-the-mill tide – and without any data you’ll never be able to make a case otherwise.

    And Bern, I’m more than happy to speak to any scientist. I was just sounding you out on both your and her sceptical capacity.

    Oh, I have sceptical capacity. This is why I don’t give any credence to your “Just So” story about sea level.

    Like answering if you [and she] are sceptical of accelerated SLR???

    I am sceptical, which is why I carefully review the data. And my conclusion after looking at the data is that there is an acceleration of sea level rise.

    As far as Jean Palutikof’s thoughts on the matter go, ask her yourself when you drop by to correct the global scientific misunderstanding on sea level rise.

    It’s you that seems to want to run from reality.

    Hardly. You’re the one who has never proffered any testable evidence, and you’re the one who steadfastly refuses to address even the most basic corrections of science that have been put to you.

  73. #74 Bernard J.
    January 21, 2013

    Drongo says:

    We are all fools Bern but the biggest fools are the ones that fool themselves.

    That’s what we been trying to tell you for three years.

    But you simply persist in fooling yourself, no matter how many times it’s explained to you.

    But it is interesting that with all these comments from you intellectualyl [sic] potentates, you do not provide any observations whatsoever of your own.

    I’ve directed you many times to data, and to my graphing of data. You just ignore it because to confront it would cause that gear-crunching cognitive dissonance that you’re so desperate to avoid.

    However, in the spirit of your standard of “data collection”, I can relate this little anecdote:

    A few years ago the January tides were such that the jetty at the lab where I worked was soaked by calm seas. The jetty was built in the first half of last century (just like yours) and the old fishers around here that I’ve spoken with reckon that it used to take a stiff nor’easter/sou’easter to wet the jetty.

    This also begs the question applicable to both your jetty and mine – why would the builders construct the height so that the jetties were effectively flooded on high tides at least twice a year? My jetty was a working commercial fishing jetty, and the last thing that the fishers who use it today want is the bloody mess that they have to put up with if they’re working on the jetty at high tide.

    Seems to me that the tide you keep harping on about wasn’t a run-of-the-mill tide – and without any data you’ll never be able to make a case otherwise.

    And Bern, I’m more than happy to speak to any scientist. I was just sounding you out on both your and her sceptical capacity.

    Oh, I have sceptical capacity. This is why I don’t give any credence to your “Just So” story about sea level.

    Like answering if you [and she] are sceptical of accelerated SLR???

    I am sceptical, which is why I carefully review the data. And my conclusion after looking at the data is that there is an acceleration of sea level rise.

    As far as Jean Palutikof’s thoughts on the matter go, ask her yourself when you drop by to correct the global scientific misunderstanding on sea level rise.

    It’s you that seems to want to run from reality.

    Hardly. You’re the one who has never proffered any testable evidence, and you’re the one who steadfastly refuses to address even the most basic corrections of science that have been put to you.

  74. #75 David B. Benson
    January 21, 2013

    This thread now has the information content of
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_noise

  75. #76 Bernard J.
    January 21, 2013

    DBB FTW!

  76. #77 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013

    Bern, delighted to hear you have sceptical capacity. But tell me, why add parenthesis to the word “intelectualyl” when you invented it. I won’t add the obvious remark .

    Interesting to hear about your wet jetty. I know lots of professionally built jetties that go under at king tide. The fender piles always extend well beyond the deck. How about some dates, places and measurements.

    “which is why I carefully review the data.”

    You mean like you reviewed that Fort Denison Data?

    How do you get accelerated SLR from that?

  77. #78 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013

    DBB, you are a little confused. White noise is at least half the noise that issues from a C&W paper.

  78. #79 Bernard J.
    January 21, 2013

    How about some dates, places and measurements.

    After you Drongo. You started it, and we’ve only been waiting for three years.

    And I include recognition of your quote of me simply to indicate that it wasn’t the original typo. Unlike you I try to take care in documentation.

    You mean like you reviewed that Fort Denison Data?

    How do you get accelerated SLR from that?

    Erm, where and when did I say that the sea level at Fort Denison was accelerating?

    You’re building another straw man Drongo to distract from the fact that you’ve been crouching on the starting block for three years.

    Like it or not, global sea level is increasing, and like it or not that rise is increasing. Of course, given that you seem to be looking for bolt-holes in which to hide from your own ridiculous claim of global sea level decline, I will add that the acceleration is in the context of the first graph at the top of the page, where the full range of data is considered.

    If you have more than a couple of bad holiday photos with which to disprove that inconvenient fact, you should put it forward.

    Or will we have to wait another three years?

  79. #80 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    How about some dates, places and measurements.

    Well, this should be good….

  80. #81 bill
    January 21, 2013

    Re Spangly’s claim re retracted papers from PubMed (from Jo Nova’s, of course), what the good Ms. Codling doesn’t tell you, of course is that

    As of 6 January 2013, PubMed has over 22.4 million records going back to 1966, selectively to the year 1865, and very selectively to 1809; about 500,000 new records are added each year.

    This is apparently sufficient to spur the innumerate to subheadings such as the following.

    Who said scientific experts should be trusted?

    Is corruption endemic? Fully 43% of retractions in the life science and medical research journals are due to fraud or suspected fraud.

    Perhaps Spangly would like to calculate what 43% of 2047 is as a fraction or percentage of 22.4 million? No?

    So, is corruption endemic? Will no-one think of the children?! Will we all be murdered in our beds?!!!

    Even if it was the annual figure I’m not exactly feeling that corruption is lurking under my bed. (But it isn’t. Check the link to a real source of information below.)

    Then again, I’m not paranoid.

    And, gee, bio-medical research – that’s the pharmaceutical industry, isn’t it? Now, there’s people who really do have profits – huuuuuuge profits – riding on the line.

    But what’s most notable is the visigoth attitude to science. We don’t like what it says on climate, so it all has to go!

    Knowledge; we hates it, it burns us!

    In all honesty, these people actually scare me.

    Also, this is old news. Why’s the AWM (Army of Winged Monkeys) flying with it now, do you suppose? Hint: Chek nailed it above.

  81. #82 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013

    “How about some dates, places and measurements.

    After you Drongo. You started it, and we’ve only been waiting for three years”

    I know you’re thick as a brick, Bern, but I did expect you to remember that I provided a photograph of the jetty at king tide, told you the date of that tide and the wherewithall to measure how much lower that tide was than the adjoining lawn which a similar king tide covered ~ 67 years ago during fine, non-cyclonic weather.

    Now, whether you can understand it or not is beside the point. But that represents data that any normal person could understand.

    Now, got anything that comes up to scratch?

    Or are you just a windbag as usual?

    “Erm, where and when did I say that the sea level at Fort Denison was accelerating?”

    Well, what are you saying about Fort Denison?

    Or like Vincie, have you gone dumb on that subject?

  82. #83 joni
    January 21, 2013

    SD

    What was the date of the similar king tide 67 years ago?

    That is the date that we are asking for. Day, month and year.

    Please supply it.

  83. #84 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013

    Joni, as I have already said more than once, they were December king tides in fine sailing and boating weather and they covered that lawn by at least an inch and threatened to run into the well which at that time in a dry summer [prior to the wet season] was the only drinking water we had left so we had to make sure the levy was intact.

    If there had been a cyclone with waves breaking over the lawn, a sandy loam levy would not have kept the salt water out of the well.

  84. #85 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    And as said time and time again, spanky, that doesn’t mean global sea level rise was zero.

  85. #86 Jeff Harvey
    January 21, 2013

    “Data fiddling is only part of your skulduggery with the gravy meter”

    Good grief, that’s rich coming from a side populated by cherry pickers and assorted liars. Trust SD to rely on a few far right blogs to make his arguments for him.

  86. #87 joni
    January 21, 2013

    And still, SD, we have to rely on your > 65 year old recollection as proof that the tides were in Dec and not the tides that were definitely affected by the TC’s.

  87. #88 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    “Data fiddling is only part of your skulduggery with the gravy meter”

    Prove your “data” hasn’t been fiddled to keep you on your gravy train.

  88. #89 Neil White
    January 21, 2013

    A while ago Spangled Drongo said:

    “Data fiddling is only part of your skulduggery with the gravy meter.”

    Does anyone have any idea what he’s on about?

  89. #90 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    So, we’re still talking about the jetty that’s up a river that’s been subject to all sorts of work, silting, dredging, etc…?

    Still haven’t seen your data, Spangly – vague anecdotes don’t count.

  90. #91 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    “Does anyone have any idea what he’s on about?”

    He’s on about how genuine records of sea level have records of what factors were incident at the time.

    Apparently, unless it’s him or another denier doing it, this is fiddling with the data and proof of malfeasance.

    Or, in other words: bollocks.

  91. #92 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013

    Joni, if you are determined to believe that I wouldn’t know the difference between idyllic weather and cyclonic weather then that remark is applicable but you must accept that the difference in those types of weather patterns is just as memorable as the sea levels, or even more so.

    “So, we’re still talking about the jetty that’s up a river that’s been subject to all sorts of work, silting, dredging, etc…?”

    Vince, you are so typical of the stupidity here.

    After nearly 6 weeks and 1800 comments you still haven’t got your facts straight.

    For the umpteenth time, that jetty is at Cleveland Point in the middle of Moreton Bay!

    You even make Bernie look bright.

  92. #93 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013
  93. #94 joni
    January 21, 2013

    And stil no date.

  94. #95 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013

    Joni, if I had had a date it would have been the first thing I gave you but as I said previously I witnessed these floodings occurring over a number of similar occasions up to the early ’50s and all in idyllic summer weather.

    I do not ever recall seeing a cyclone coinciding with a king tide at that address. I know they happened there and there was a lot of destruction as a result but I never witnessed them.

    If I had, I wouldn’t have forgotten them.

    Except the date, probably ☺.

  95. #96 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013

    BTW, this is how the real world doesn’t correlate with the gravy meter:

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

  96. #97 chek
    January 21, 2013

    All you have to do now Spanky is show where the IPCC claims CO2 is the only forcing on global temperature.

    Which you can’t do because they don’t. Making you another victim of crank blog disinformation. I hope you don’t send those frauds anything from your pension.

  97. #98 chek
    January 21, 2013

    Hey – looks like “fraud” is back in the permissible lexicon.

  98. #99 spangled drongo
    January 21, 2013

    “All you have to do now Spanky is show where the IPCC claims CO2 is the only forcing on global temperature.

    Which you can’t do because they don’t. Making you another victim of crank blog disinformation. I hope you don’t send those frauds anything from your pension.”

    What are you trying to say here chek?

    That the uncertainty monster is worse than we thought?

  99. #100 David B. Benson
    January 22, 2013

Current ye@r *