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 chek
    January 22, 2013

    I’m not “trying to say” anything Spanky. I’m telling you that CO2 isn’t the only driver affecting climate. What are you trying to say? That you believed the crank version of the science and it was? Quelle surprise.

  2. #2 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Can’t answer the question, spanky?

    Are you trying to say that you know you’re talking shite?

  3. #3 Neil White
    January 22, 2013

    Spangled Drongo

    What is the “gravy meter”?

  4. #4 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    It’s like a yard of ale for the wimpy, Neil.
    :-)

  5. #5 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    What he’s saying, Spangles, is to stop getting your (dis)information from crank blogs like Marohasy and WUWT.

    In springtime, do I expect each day to be warmer than the last?
    If the daily temperature increase during spring isn’t linear, and a cold day occurs, do I get into a flap due to “Summer’s not coming!?”
    Do you understand just how vacuous that crap is that you repeat from your crank blogs?

  6. #6 spangled drongo
    January 22, 2013

    Been invited up there DBB, but haven’t been yet.

    Nimbin’s not really my scene but the border ranges are.

  7. #7 spangled drongo
    January 22, 2013

    Chek, I’m relieved you’re not trying to say anything because you aren’t and you haven’t for the last 18 pages.

    “What is the “gravy meter”?”

    Come off it Neil.

  8. #8 chek
    January 22, 2013

    Thanks for clumsily and selectively evading the question Spanky. It says all that need be said.

  9. #9 Richard Simons
    January 22, 2013

    SD: Doesn’t that graph you linked to refer only to the temperature at one location in Greenland. Are you sure that the zero on the time graph means a date in the last two or three years? I’m sure that if you check you’ll find it refers to a date more than 50 years ago. Things have changed a little since the mid 1950s. IIRC, the last measurement actually dated from over 90 years ago.

  10. #10 spangled drongo
    January 22, 2013

    RS, so what you are saying is: that even though it didn’t correlate for 11,000 years, because it got a bit closer in the last century, that proves it?

    You better talk to chek.

  11. #11 bill
    January 22, 2013

    Ho ho – is Spangly channeling the spirit of Don Easterbrook?

    It is quite a testament to your general lack of awareness of any of the issues that you’d put forward a graph that not only ends in, what, 1855(?), it shows ‘current’ CO2 concentratrion as 280ppm!

    Munchkin, do you even know what the current CO2 concentration is? It’s not hard to find out, but it’s difficult to learn if you’ve devoted a lifetime to carefully studied ignorance.

    Thanks for the own-goal, old man! But, seriously: try to be less of a sucker

  12. #12 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    When you’re Spangly and “data” consists of unverifiable things he keeps in his head, 1855 is pretty much, “now”.

  13. #13 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    Lol, I just had a look at Spangly’s graph of Greenland temperatures (why Greenland? Who knows?)

    He seems to be arguing that Greenland temperature doesn’t correlate with global CO2.

    If you look at the graphic, you can see that
    – between 11000 – 7000 both show a slight opposite trend
    – between 7000 – 0 both show a fairly strong opposite trend in the other direction

    So not only is it a stupid argument, but it appears to contradict the evidence.

    Another own-goal, Spangly.

  14. #14 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    It might be 1950 – that’s roundabout when nuclear atmospheric testing mucks up the isotopes.

  15. #15 spangled drongo
    January 22, 2013

    Bill, in case you didn’t get it we are talking about what went on prior to the IR.

    Now Vincie, have another squiz:

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

    What was it Richard Feynman said: If it correlates it doesn’t prove causation but if it DOESN’T correlate, you got buckleys.

  16. #16 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    Looks like it correlates quite nicely.

    Better get a new pair of glasses, Spangly.

  17. #17 David B. Benson
    January 22, 2013

    GISP2 ice core is from Summit, ‘central’ Greenland. The last d18O date from GISP2 is for 1857 CE. Some attempts to provide a graphic for GISP2 do not make this clear.

  18. #18 David B. Benson
    January 22, 2013

    spangled drongo provided a link to a climate4you graphic. The label on the left side of that is wrong; those are the d18O temperatures (which is not the same as the temperature at Summit). Worse, the dome C CO2 is not to be trusted at scales less than millennial.

  19. #19 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    That’s why you have to ignore all the sharp peaks and troughs.

  20. #20 spangled drongo
    January 22, 2013

    I wonder if Neil remembers this.

    Only 15cm SLR by 2100:

    http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    January 22, 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 [sic] 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?

    Me a “windbag”? Really Drongo, you’re the one who has been making claims for three years based on nothing more than a few non-quality assured photos and a couple of fishermen’s tales.

    And my point seems to have been lost on you. I countered your unsubstantiated tales with some anecdotes of my own which, unsatisfactorily for you, diametrically disagree with your narrative.

    But notice how you immediately sprang to the position of requiring substantiation? Now why did you do that? Would it be that you requires […gasp…] evidence?!

    By applying your logic to my observations a couple of unsubstantiated stories would prove my point. You didn’t like that, did you? And you shouldn’t.

    But note that I don’t use my own anecdotes as proof of sea level rise The tides to which I referred will have been just as profoundly influenced by confounding factors as were yours, and several isolated observations cannot be construed as any sort of evidence in the context of this subject. I don’t rely on a few random tide heights with which to draw a conclusion, and neither should you or any of your blinkered mates at Marohasy’s swamp.

    And this brings us back to your stories. You blather on about idyllic conditions at the time of your tides, but I’ve seen barometric pressure drop (and increase) by 20 to 30 millibars in just an hour or two, with nary a cyclone in sight, and often with no storm clouds in sight. Your defense that it was not cyclonic at the time of your 1946 tide is irrelevant.

    Some more questions:

    1) Does one tide (or even several) in the forties serve as an infallible reference point?

    2) Can you demonstrate that all of the tides between 1900 and 1945 were also above the January 2013 tide?

    3) And what of the 1947 to 1980+ tides? Were they also all above the 2013 tide?

    4) If not, why were they not?

    5) If there were tides prior to the 1980s (or whenever) that were lower than the January 2013 one at your blessed river wall lighthouse, does this not by your own logic prove that in fact sea level must be rising?

    Please number your answers, and please use references to data and primary literature as appropriate to construct a scientifically-defensible response.

    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?

    What was I saying about Fort Denison? Have I gone “dumb on the subject”? Drongo, read back carefully through this thread. Fort Denison is not something that I’ve engaged with other than to point out that you were verballing me with your straw man about acceleration of sea level rise there.

    It’s fascinating to see how free and easy you are with accusing others of verballing you (when in fact that is not the case) and yet you are happy to attribute to others comments which they have not made in any context, by any stretch of the imagination.

    Not only are you an ideologically blinkered and scientifically ignorant old fart, you’re a hypocritical grub to boot.

    Oh, and do let us know when you’ve been to see Jean Palutikof at the the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility that is literally just around the corner from you. Have you booked an appointment yet? I want to hear from you what she says in response to your revelation that she and her colleagues in the IPCC scientific teams are profoundly wrong, and I will then be sure to contact her myself to see just how accurately you report your pronouncement to her that she doesn’t understand sea level rise as well as you.

    Or are you too scared to go and put it to a real scientist?

  22. #22 Bernard J.
    January 22, 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 [sic] 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?

    Me a “windbag”? Really Drongo, you’re the one who has been making claims for three years based on nothing more than a few non-quality assured photos and a couple of fishermen’s tales.

    And my point seems to have been lost on you. I countered your unsubstantiated tales with some anecdotes of my own which, unsatisfactorily for you, diametrically disagree with your narrative.

    But notice how you immediately sprang to the position of requiring substantiation? Now why did you do that? Would it be that you requires […gasp…] evidence?!

    By applying your logic to my observations a couple of unsubstantiated stories would prove my point. You didn’t like that, did you? And you shouldn’t.

    But note that I don’t use my own anecdotes as proof of sea level rise The tides to which I referred will have been just as profoundly influenced by confounding factors as were yours, and several isolated observations cannot be construed as any sort of evidence in the context of this subject. I don’t rely on a few random tide heights with which to draw a conclusion, and neither should you or any of your blinkered mates at Marohasy’s swamp.

    And this brings us back to your stories. You blather on about idyllic conditions at the time of your tides, but I’ve seen barometric pressure drop (and increase) by 20 to 30 millibars in just an hour or two, with nary a cyclone in sight, and often with no storm clouds in sight. Your defense that it was not cyclonic at the time of your 1946 tide is irrelevant.

    Some more questions:

    1) Does one tide (or even several) in the forties serve as an infallible reference point?

    2) Can you demonstrate that all of the tides between 1900 and 1945 were also above the January 2013 tide?

    3) And what of the 1947 to 1980+ tides? Were they also all above the 2013 tide?

    4) If not, why were they not?

    5) If there were tides prior to the 1980s (or whenever) that were lower than the January 2013 one at your blessed river wall lighthouse, does this not by your own logic prove that in fact sea level must be rising?

    Please number your answers, and please use references to data and primary literature as appropriate to construct a scientifically-defensible response.

    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?

    What was I saying about Fort Denison? Have I gone “dumb on the subject”? Drongo, read back carefully through this thread. Fort Denison is not something that I’ve engaged with other than to point out that you were verballing me with your straw man about acceleration of sea level rise there.

    It’s fascinating to see how free and easy you are with accusing others of verballing you (when in fact that is not the case) and yet you are happy to attribute to others comments which they have not made in any context, by any stretch of the imagination.

    Not only are you an ideologically blinkered and scientifically ignorant old fart, you’re a hypocritical grub to boot.

    Oh, and do let us know when you’ve been to see Jean Palutikof at the the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility that is literally just around the corner from you. Have you booked an appointment yet? I want to hear from you what she says in response to your revelation that she and her colleagues in the IPCC scientific teams are profoundly wrong, and I will then be sure to contact her myself to see just how accurately you report your pronouncement to her that she doesn’t understand sea level rise as well as you.

    Or are you too scared to go and put it to a real scientist?

  23. #23 Bernard J.
    January 22, 2013

    Fuck it.

    I hate National Geographic.

  24. #24 Bernard J.
    January 22, 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 [sic] 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?

    Me a “windbag”? Really Drongo, you’re the one who has been making claims for three years based on nothing more than a few non-quality assured photos and a couple of fishermen’s tales.

    And my point seems to have been lost on you. I countered your unsubstantiated tales with some anecdotes of my own which, unsatisfactorily for you, diametrically disagree with your narrative.

    But notice how you immediately sprang to the position of requiring substantiation? Now why did you do that? Would it be that you requires […gasp…] evidence?!

    By applying your logic to my observations a couple of unsubstantiated stories would prove my point. You didn’t like that, did you? And you shouldn’t.

    But note that I don’t use my own anecdotes as proof of sea level rise The tides to which I referred will have been just as profoundly influenced by confounding factors as were yours, and several isolated observations cannot be construed as any sort of evidence in the context of this subject. I don’t rely on a few random tide heights with which to draw a conclusion, and neither should you or any of your blinkered mates at Marohasy’s swamp.

    And this brings us back to your stories. You blather on about idyllic conditions at the time of your tides, but I’ve seen barometric pressure drop (and increase) by 20 to 30 millibars in just an hour or two, with nary a cyclone in sight, and often with no storm clouds in sight. Your defense that it was not cyclonic at the time of your 1946 tide is irrelevant.

    Some more questions:

    1) Does one tide (or even several) in the forties serve as an infallible reference point?

    2) Can you demonstrate that all of the tides between 1900 and 1945 were also above the January 2013 tide?

    3) And what of the 1947 to 1980+ tides? Were they also all above the 2013 tide?

    4) If not, why were they not?

    5) If there were tides prior to the 1980s (or whenever) that were lower than the January 2013 one at your blessed river wall lighthouse, does this not by your own logic prove that in fact sea level must be rising?

    Please number your answers, and please use references to data and primary literature as appropriate to construct a scientifically-defensible response.

    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?

    What was I saying about Fort Denison? Have I gone “dumb on the subject”? Drongo, read back carefully through this thread. Fort Denison is not something that I’ve engaged with other than to point out that you were verballing me with your straw man about acceleration of sea level rise there.

    It’s fascinating to see how free and easy you are with accusing others of verballing you (when in fact that is not the case) and yet you are happy to attribute to others comments which they have not made in any context, by any stretch of the imagination.

    Not only are you an ideologically blinkered and scientifically ignorant old fart, you’re a hypocritical grub to boot.

    Oh, and do let us know when you’ve been to see Jean Palutikof at the the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility that is literally just around the corner from you. Have you booked an appointment yet? I want to hear from you what she says in response to your revelation that she and her colleagues in the IPCC scientific teams are profoundly wrong, and I will then be sure to contact her myself to see just how accurately you report your pronouncement to her that she doesn’t understand sea level rise as well as you.

    Or are you too scared to go and put it to a real scientist?

  25. #25 spangled drongo
    January 22, 2013

    This is for bill. He would like to know how human emissions correlate with temperature. Not so good, bill:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/tbrown_figure3.png

  26. #26 David B. Benson
    January 22, 2013
  27. #27 David B. Benson
    January 22, 2013

    Do not believe a thing found on WUWT.

    It is a ‘turtles all the way down’ site.

  28. #28 spangled drongo
    January 22, 2013

    “but I’ve seen barometric pressure drop (and increase) by 20 to 30 millibars in just an hour or two, with nary a cyclone in sight”

    You surprise me Bern. Very observant of you. Now do you have any instance of it happening in any of the Decembers between 1946 and the early 1950s?

    And as I said to Joni, I didn’t witness any of the cyclones that coincided with king tides at Cleveland Point in those years even though they occurred and caused considerable damage by generating even higher SLs.

    So we’ll agree to let Fort Denison speak for itself then?

    The rest of your post is just waffle and waving.

  29. #29 spangled drongo
    January 22, 2013

    “Do not believe a thing found on WUWT.

    It is a ‘turtles all the way down’ site.”

    I think your statement comes under the heading of “Nitpicking, Non-attention-paying Nincompoop”.

    DBB my graph was for ACO2, yours was for paleo CO2.

    But tell me DBB, if I superimposed the CET or the AGT over your graph, would it correlate any better?

  30. #30 Richard Simons
    January 22, 2013

    SD: Your last link was to a graph of the so-called Central England Temperature record. Are you aware that some of the measurements were taken indoors and others came from the Netherlands? It is not something I would want to put much faith in.

  31. #31 spangled drongo
    January 22, 2013

    “It is not something I would want to put much faith in”

    Richard, it ties in very well with all the old European records as well as the new AGT and is the oldest of all.

    Where do you think it is wrong?

    And by how much?

  32. #32 David B. Benson
    January 22, 2013

    The Law Dome CO2 matches the Keeling curve in the period of overlap to within 0.25% except right at the end of the Law Dome data where the agreement is within 0.5%.

    Stated more briefly, the two records agree.

  33. #33 David B. Benson
    January 22, 2013

    CET says something about the temperatures in, well, central England. That is hardly the northern hemisphere much less the globe.

  34. #34 Bernard J.
    January 22, 2013

    Very observant of you. Now do you have any instance of it happening in any of the Decembers between 1946 and the early 1950s?

    In other words, you yourself do not have a clue what the barometric conditions were in south-east Queensland 67 years ago. Why am I not surprised…

    And as I said to Joni, I didn’t witness any of the cyclones that coincided with king tides at Cleveland Point in those years even though they occurred and caused considerable damage by generating even higher SLs.

    So? An absence of cyclones at the moment of a king tide does not mean that there were not barometric conditions conducive of unusual heights. Are you really this clueless about basic meteorology?

    Oh, and I will recall for the audience’s edification that you made a lot of noise before about how flooding during one of your riverine ‘king’ tides did not affect the height achieved, but that the cyclone and the surge at the time did:

    HATs are theoretical tides and many externals increase them. At my benchmark the ’74 flood was about 1.5 metres above the king tide mark and the current was still running UPSTREAM at its peak. IOW this rise was possibly all due to the cyclone and sea surge. Not the flood.

    This is the wall and the instance that you were trying to use to claim that sea level was decreasing, and now you claim that it was not affected by a cyclone.

    Which is it Drongo?

    Either you were wrong then about the conditions at the time of your vaunted tide, or you are wrong now.

    And why did you concede then that meteorological and oceanographic conditions affect tides, but you staunchly avoid such an admission now?

    So we’ll agree to let Fort Denison speak for itself then?

    What’s is saying, Drongo? And before you answer, do you know where Fort Denison is located?

    The rest of your post is just waffle and waving.

    What, you mean the bit where I press you on going to visit a real scientist and making your case to her that there have been profound problems with the world’s oceanographers and with their analyses and interpretations of data? You mean the bit where I pres you to put your amazing evidence to the test so that the record might be corrected?

    Oh, that bit…

    Keep telling yourself that it’s “waffle and waving” Drongo. One day you might even manage to convince yourself of it, but it will not change the fact that the only waffle and waving here is that in which you have engaged for three years.

    Three years Drongo. In those three years you have been unable to:

    1) present any testable evidence

    2) accept that your tide height is affected by numerous significant confounding factors

    3) understand that whatever is happening in your region is not necessarily reflective of the planet as a whole.

    It’s people like you that probably inspired Stanley R. Greenberg in his adaptation of Harry Harrison’s Make Room! Make Room!. What an unpalatable thought…

  35. #35 Neil White
    January 22, 2013

    Spangled Drongo

    There is a much better plot of T vs CO2 here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

    Much better than the cherry pick you showed! And there’s some actual science on this site – unlike the ones you go to!

    And you still haven’t told us what the “gravy meter” is. Is this another of your inventions (like the Billard Table Principle) that you don’t even understand yourself?

  36. #36 Neil White
    January 22, 2013

    Spangled Drongo

    The abstract of that article in JCR starts: “Without sea-level acceleration,…”.

    But there IS sealevel acceleration as we all know. So what is your point? Suddenly you seem to like paleo data, EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN’T ACTUALLY SEE IT YOURSELF. The paleo data, is very clear on the acceleration in sea-level rise, and is consistent with estimates from tide gauge data, as shown at the top of this post.

    Another own goal!

  37. #37 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    This is for bill. He would like to know how human emissions correlate with temperature. Not so good, bill:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/tbrown_figure3.png

    OMGFG, that is the most retarded thing I have seen on this thread yet.

    There is no way you could be even slightly sceptical and not see that graphic for the complete and utter crap it is.

    Where do you start on such abject nonsense….Spangly, you *do* realise that CO2 uptake by various sinks responds to emissions?

    You *really* need to stop getting your (dis)information from that crank blog run by Anthony Watts called WUWT. It is incompetent, ignorant drivel.

  38. #38 Bernard J.
    January 22, 2013

    Thanks Tim.

  39. #39 bill
    January 22, 2013

    Gee, SD, you’re really out for ‘sucker of the Year’ today, aren’t you?

    Where did that ridiculous red line ‘climate model prediction’ come from? What’s it a prediction of, and what/where for, pet? What, the IPCC has ‘predicted’ that temps in 2113 in Central England will have reached 17C, eh? You think?

    But look what I just found

    For the A1B emissions scenario the UK is projected to experience temperature
    increases of up to around 3°C in the south and 2.5°C further north.

    That’s above the 1960-1991 baseline, incidentally. Which doesn’t appear to be anywhere near 14C, does it, petal?

    So; what Vince said + replot the chart with the scale on the left going from 7-13C (and that’s being very generous to you) and then see how smart you look.

    Don’t forget, pet, the temp curve is called a ‘curve’ because it’s bendy – in this case, up: it’ll increase most in the latter half of the Century.

    This ludicrously disparate dual-scale thing is a trick that works on the kind of notably dense little munchkins who think Lord Monckton is both a scientist and a genius.

    Is this in current use in Denier land? It’s so palpably daft it’s a gift…

  40. #41 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    What would you know about the real world, spankers?

    Oh, dear. Winter is STILL suprising to you?

    Where are the 6ft snowdrifts like we used to have?

    http://www.reading.ac.uk/merl/research/merl_fellowships_martin.aspx

    I guess even the extreme cold days are now much warmer than the extreme cold days we used to have.

    That’s Global Warming for you.

  41. #42 spangled drongo
    January 22, 2013

    Correction for Bernie:

    Waffle, FROTHING and waving.

    Have a bex and a good lie down, Bern.

  42. #43 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Well, now you understand what your blatherings sound like to the sane population, donkey.

  43. #44 spangled drongo
    January 22, 2013

    But you’re forgetting Wowsie, this is what we’re supposed to have:

    “However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”

  44. #45 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Yup.

    We know.

    Your point?

  45. #46 spangled drongo
    January 22, 2013

    Bern, did you read what Wowsie just said about you?

  46. #47 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    spanky, did you read what I wrote?

  47. #48 spangled drongo
    January 22, 2013

    “Yup.

    We know.

    Your point?”

    You know when he said that, Wowsie?

    THIRTEEN years ago.

    Maybe it’s possible you know SHIT?

  48. #49 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “You know when he said that, Wowsie?

    THIRTEEN years ago.”

    Yup, I know.

    So, what’s your point?

  49. #50 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Spanking Donkey, you’ve quoted without attribution someone claiming what Dr Vines said.

    But you don’t know why you did that.

  50. #51 Richard Simons
    January 22, 2013

    SD:

    Where do you think it [the CET] is wrong?

    And by how much?

    I don’t know. That is why I wouldn’t put much trust in it.

    Tell me: why did that graph you linked to show CO2 emissions rather than concentration? Isn’t it the concentration that is important? Why was a local temperature record used as a proxy for global temperature when better ones are available? Why were the temperature data not expanded to fill the entire graph vertically? Perhaps the answer to all three is the same – it might have been possible to show a relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature.

  51. #52 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “Where do you think it [the CET] is wrong?”

    Because Central England isn’t even all of England, never mind the globe.

    You DO know that the map with “You are here” on it isn’t actually the thing being mapped, right, spankies?

  52. #53 spangled drongo
    January 22, 2013

    “Why was a local temperature record used as a proxy for global temperature when better ones are available?”

    For two very obvious reasons, RS.

    1/ CET is the longest record and much more reliable than other proxies.

    2/ It agrees with all the other European records that started later.

    Is that so hard to understand?

  53. #54 chek
    January 22, 2013

    CET is the longest record and much more reliable than other proxies.

    How so?

  54. #55 spangled drongo
    January 23, 2013

    “CET is the longest record and much more reliable than other proxies.

    How so?”

    Would you rather believe the Hokey Stick?

  55. #56 David B. Benson
    January 23, 2013

    Back to being a white noise generator, I see.

  56. #57 chek
    January 23, 2013

    What I tend to find Spanky is that cranks who wibble on about the CET know nothing about it.

    And as you’re oh-so impressed by the “quality”, once again: how so?

  57. #58 spangled drongo
    January 23, 2013

    I have been trying to contact as many of the old residents as possible who have known the area all their lives to give me their thoughts and recollections of cyclonic events at Cleveland Point seeing as how I have never witnessed a cyclonic event there that coincided with a king tide.

    It’s still work-in-progress but one man who has a local park named after him, still carries out community assistance work and at 94 is sharp as a tack, tells me that in 1936 the whole of Cleveland Point was swept by seas and the road was so far under, it was inaccessible. This would possibly put SLs a meter higher than the levels I witnessed in mild weather between 1946 and the early 1950s.

    He worked in his father’s real estate business which encompassed 3 generations and they used not to talk about things like that as it was very bad for business.

    But that supports convincingly that what I witnessed was a real situation and that current SLs are not only NOT accelerating, not rising, but actually going down.

  58. #59 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    They still won’t know what the global mean sea level was, spanky.

  59. #60 spangled drongo
    January 23, 2013

    DBB, chek, Wow, RS et al, please show how thermometers are not more reliable than tree rings etc.

    Is your problem maybe that you can’t “hide the decline” with thermometers?

  60. #61 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “CET is the longest record and much more reliable than other proxies.

    How so?”

    Would you rather believe the Hokey Stick?

    Would you rather not answer the question?

  61. #62 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “1/ CET is the longest record and much more reliable than other proxies.”

    It still isn’t even the entire UK, never mind the entire world.

    And please prove that it is more reliable.

    “2/ It agrees with all the other European records that started later.”

    It doesn’t, else why would you use that rather than the entire data set of weather records.

  62. #63 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “please show how thermometers are not more reliable than tree rings etc.”

    Please show us that the CET is more reliable than tree rings for trees over the entire globe.

  63. #64 spangled drongo
    January 23, 2013

    I just checked Joni’s link for 1936 cyclones in Moreton Bay.

    It mentions Cleveland Point:

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

  64. #65 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    And your point is..?

  65. #66 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    Hell, since Cleveland Point isn’t in the CET dataset, why the hell are you bothering looking there? Use the CET tide gauge information.

    It’s got a much longer record than Australia.

  66. #67 bill
    January 23, 2013

    I think I’m going to use the term ‘idiot magnet’ to describe charts such as that one from Watts’ that Spanky posted earlier.

    I notice he just dropped it, wisely, but we had barely scratched the surface of the Stupid embodied in that particular graph…

  67. #68 Bernard J.
    January 23, 2013

    … in 1936 the whole of Cleveland Point was swept by seas and the road was so far under, it was inaccessible. This would possibly put SLs a meter higher than the levels I witnessed in mild weather between 1946 and the early 1950s.

    [snip]

    But that supports convincingly that what I witnessed was a real situation and that current SLs are not only NOT accelerating, not rising, but actually going down.

    Are you out of your fracking mind?

    Flooding caused by cyclonic surging combined with king tides in the first half of the 20th century proves that sea level is decreasing now?!

    Idiot.

    You still haven’t controlled for multiple and simultaneously-acting confounders. Why do you refuse to do this? Do you truly not understand how utterly at odds with rational scientific understanding is your thinking?

    You haven’t explained why sea level is decreasing. Did someone pull the plug?

    What physical mechanism is causing the decrease?

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

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

    Where did it go?

    And what physical phenomenon or phenomena moved it there?

  68. #69 spangled drongo
    January 23, 2013

    Seas 1.5 meters higher 77 years ago.

    OO, LOOK! What’s that over there?

  69. #70 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “OO, LOOK! What’s that over there?”

    The remains of your brainstem, desperately trying to avoid destruction, spanky.

  70. #71 Bernard J.
    January 23, 2013

    Seas 1.5 meters higher 77 years ago.

    Really, is this what you are claiming?

    If not, what is your actual height versus time figure?

  71. #72 Bernard J.
    January 23, 2013

    I have to admit you had us suckered for three years Drongo. We all thought that you were actually serious, but you now reveal to all that you are in fact a poe.

    But boy, you suckered the knuckle-draggers at Marohasy’s swamp and at Codling’s cesspit even more – they actually believed your tripe! Ol’ Jen and Jo must be so embarrassed now, realising that they were played for the numpties that they are.

  72. #73 bill
    January 23, 2013

    SCENE: Spanky’s desk

    [Spanky is reading his computer screen. Cut to screen text:

    You still haven’t controlled for multiple and simultaneously-acting confounders.

    Screen POV shot of Spanky’s face. His brows crease momentarily in the distress of concentration. We can see his lips move as he runs over the sentence again.

    His eyes glaze over briefly, and then he relaxes.

    He begins to type ] :

    Seas 1.5 meters higher 77 years ago.

    OO, LOOK! What’s that over there?

  73. #74 spangled drongo
    January 23, 2013

    “Flooding caused by cyclonic surging combined with king tides in the first half of the 20th century proves that sea level is decreasing now?!”

    Instead of frothing and ranting, bern have you checked the highest flood surge ever recorded in Moreton Bay?

    When you do that you will see that it convincingly supports that what I witnessed was normal SL at the time.

    Which also supports the fact that not only is SLR NOT accelerating, SLs NOT rising, but actually falling. QED.

    “to where has the one hundred and twenty-eight thousand three hundred and seventy-two cubic kilometres (128 372 km^3) of seawater represented by this decrease disappeared?”

    Got nooo idea, hey bern?

    I’m sure you’re fertile imagination can come up with something.

    Bern thinks that because he refuses to think about it, it didn’t happen.

    What exquisite denial.

  74. #75 Richard Simons
    January 23, 2013

    1/ CET is the longest record and much more reliable than other proxies.

    2/ It agrees with all the other European records that started later.

    So the CET is reliable even though some of the measurements were taken indoors, in unheated greenhouses?

    Is Europe the entire globe? Are its temperatures necessarily representative of the whole globe?

    DBB, chek, Wow, RS et al, please show how thermometers are not more reliable than tree rings etc.

    At least some of the thermometers were badly sited, far worse than the ones complained about at WUWT. Not only were some indoors but some were in a different country. When do you think adequate screening was invented? When do you think it was routinely used for the data incorporated into the CET?

  75. #76 David B. Benson
    January 23, 2013

    In the USA the researchers find that the earliest that instrumental records (liquid in glass thermometers) were not sufficiently used across the face of the globe until 1880 CE. The English are willing to push back to 1850 CE.

    Recently BEST has produced a land-only global temperature product starting in about 1750 CE.

    For older than that, some forms of proxies have to be used. Here is a recent paper:

    The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability
    B. Christiansen and F. C. Ljungqvist
    Clim. Past, 8, 765–786, 2012
    http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/
    doi:10.5194/cp-8-765-2012

    That suggests that SLR might be accelerating recently. Indeed, we have
    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
    which brings us full circle…

  76. #77 Vince Whirlwind
    January 23, 2013

    So Spangles is still convinced that his imaginary data is rock-solid proof that all the fraudulent scientists who measure stuff carefully are wrong.

    There is no actual cure for Dunning-Kruger, is there?

  77. #78 Bernard J.
    January 23, 2013
    “Flooding caused by cyclonic surging combined with king tides in the first half of the 20th century proves that sea level is decreasing now?!”

    Instead of frothing and ranting, bern have you checked the highest flood surge ever recorded in Moreton Bay?

    What does the highest flood surge ever recorded in Moreton Bay have to do with anything?

    The discussion is about the increase in mean global sea level, and not about a conjunction of multiple and simultaneously-acting confounders that cause a particular storm surge record. It seems to escape your understanding that the rate of sea level rise per century can be overwhelmed by storm surge alone, leave aside any of the other factors that superimpose.

    I can keep on repeating these facts Drongo, and you can keep on ignoring them. It won’t change the fact that I am correct and you are not, but it will demonstrate that you are constitutionally incapable of assimilating basic science.

    When you do that you will see that it convincingly supports that what I witnessed was normal SL at the time.

    If it was “normal at the time” then you and your contemporaries were simply stupid to build structures that would be so “normally” flooded.

    Are you that stupid Drongo?

    “to where has the one hundred and twenty-eight thousand three hundred and seventy-two cubic kilometres (128 372 km^3) of seawater represented by this decrease disappeared?”

    Got nooo idea, hey bern?

    Obviously you have no idea to where all that seawater is disappearing, or else you would have explained how your claim holds up. You didn’t explain where the water has gone, so I conclude that your claim cannot withstand rational consideration.

    I’m sure you’re fertile imagination can come up with something.

    Drongo, I don’t subscribe to your claim that sea level has decreased by somewhere between 36 cm to 1.5 m, so I don’t need to imagine what contravention of science might be operating.

    Your conclusion is logically fallacious.

    Bern thinks that because he refuses to think about it, it didn’t happen.

    Oh, but I am thinking about it. This is why I know that your numbers do not square with the empirical evidence, or with the basic laws of physics. This is why I am asking you many questions in order to reconcile your numbers with the real world.

    I can reflect your statement though, and note that because you persist in refusing to answer any of the hundreds of question which I have put to you, you seem to think that those same questions were therefore not asked, and that the scientific underpinnings on which those questions are based don’t then render your claims laughable.

    What exquisite denial.

    What exquisite cognitive scotoma, and what exquisite reflection, and what exquisite poe-ing.

    Drongo, if you believe what you say you are mentally diseased. Please tell your children and grandchildren to read these threads, so that they might see:

    1) the serious state of your mental decrepitude, and

    2) the profound damage that you seek to wring on the lives of their children and grandchildren.

  78. #79 Bernard J.
    January 23, 2013
    “Flooding caused by cyclonic surging combined with king tides in the first half of the 20th century proves that sea level is decreasing now?!”

    Instead of frothing and ranting, bern have you checked the highest flood surge ever recorded in Moreton Bay?

    What does the highest flood surge ever recorded in Moreton Bay have to do with anything?

    The discussion is about the increase in mean global sea level, and not about a conjunction of multiple and simultaneously-acting confounders that cause a particular storm surge record. It seems to escape your understanding that the rate of sea level rise per century can be overwhelmed by storm surge alone, leave aside any of the other factors that superimpose.

    I can keep on repeating these facts Drongo, and you can keep on ignoring them. It won’t change the fact that I am correct and you are not, but it will demonstrate that you are constitutionally incapable of assimilating basic science.

    When you do that you will see that it convincingly supports that what I witnessed was normal SL at the time.

    If it was “normal at the time” then you and your contemporaries were simply stupid to build structures that would be so “normally” flooded.

    Are you that stupid Drongo?

    “to where has the one hundred and twenty-eight thousand three hundred and seventy-two cubic kilometres (128 372 km^3) of seawater represented by this decrease disappeared?”

    Got nooo idea, hey bern?

    Obviously you have no idea to where all that seawater is disappearing, or else you would have explained how your claim holds up. You didn’t explain where the water has gone, so I conclude that your claim cannot withstand rational consideration.

    I’m sure you’re fertile imagination can come up with something.

    Drongo, I don’t subscribe to your claim that sea level has decreased by somewhere between 36 cm to 1.5 m, so I don’t need to imagine what contravention of science might be operating.

    Your conclusion is logically fallacious.

    Bern thinks that because he refuses to think about it, it didn’t happen.

    Oh, but I am thinking about it. This is why I know that your numbers do not square with the empirical evidence, or with the basic laws of physics. This is why I am asking you many questions in order to reconcile your numbers with the real world.

    I can reflect your statement though, and note that because you persist in refusing to answer any of the hundreds of question which I have put to you, you seem to think that those same questions were therefore not asked, and that the scientific underpinnings on which those questions are based don’t then render your claims laughable.

    What exquisite denial.

    What exquisite cognitive scotoma, and what exquisite reflection, and what exquisite poe-ing.

    Drongo, if you believe what you say you are mentally diseased. Please tell your children and grandchildren to read these threads, so that they might see:

    1) the serious state of your mental decrepitude, and

    2) the profound damage that you seek to wring on the lives of their children and grandchildren.

  79. #80 spangled drongo
    January 23, 2013

    “When you do that you will see that it convincingly supports that what I witnessed was normal SL at the time.

    If it was “normal at the time” then you and your contemporaries were simply stupid to build structures that would be so “normally” flooded”

    Bern, you’re not only foolish but getting apoplectic as well. Cleveland Point is one of the oldest developments in Moreton Bay and was intended as the Port of Brisbane.

    When it was first developed the flooding most likely didn’t happen.

    A short period of flooding for about an hour, twice a year, for high set houses is not a problem when weighed against the magical benefits of the position but the simple fact is that it is not happening now.

    Now hurry up and take your meds.

  80. #81 Bernard J.
    January 23, 2013

    Cleveland Point is one of the oldest developments in Moreton Bay and was intended as the Port of Brisbane.

    When it was first developed the flooding most likely didn’t happen.

    Ah, so now you’re documenting sea level rise between the 1800s and the early 20th century.

    I think that’s called an own-goal Drongo.

    Tell us – if sea level was increasing then (and science says that it was, at a much lower rate than is seen today), why has it reversed?

    A short period of flooding for about an hour, twice a year, for high set houses is not a problem when weighed against the magical benefits of the position but the simple fact is that it is not happening now.

    This must be a peculiarity of the Moreton bay area then, because I don’t know any places in other parts of Australia that build to that poor standard – and Drongo, I’ve lived a stone’s throw from salt water for most of my life, in several states.

    What about the rest of the Australians here? Do your local shore-dwellers have wet carpet twice a year from meteorologically-benign king tides?

    Now hurry up and take your meds.

    Ah, still unable to put forward a considered, evidenced, and references argument I see.

    You can ad hom me as much as you feel the need to. It doesn’t change the objective fact that by the vehicle of your own demonstrable inability to address the science of the subject, you are an idiot, and that my observation of this is not ad hominem.

  81. #82 Bernard J.
    January 23, 2013

    And Drongo, I haven’t forgotten that you haven’t answered the questions here, let alone the hundreds of others that you’ve avoided for three years.

    You really are too chicken-shit scared to address the matter of the data, aren’t you?

  82. #83 spangled drongo
    January 23, 2013

    “Tell us – if sea level was increasing then (and science says that it was, at a much lower rate than is seen today), why has it reversed?”

    I wouldn’t dream of telling a genius like you WHY anything.

    But may I offer a suggestion? Check the temperature variations for the period.

    And with your ad hom rationale, you’re a bit like Gillard calling Abbott a misogynist and claiming she doesn’t play the sexist card.

    “I don’t know any places in other parts of Australia that build to that poor standard – and Drongo, I’ve lived a stone’s throw from salt water for most of my life, in several states”.

    Bern, if you weren’t such a fool and a hypocrite you would be a joke. Not only does this happen in many parts of this country but being the decendant of prolific polder preservers, you should be aware that your ancestors have had a much bigger problem for half a millenia.

  83. #84 spangled drongo
    January 23, 2013

    Bern, when you are too stupid to understand that perfect summer weather around Moreton Bay doesn’t involve low barometric pressures supported by the fact that there have been no cyclones in December in the years I quoted [if at all] I am forced to ignore your distractions, obscurantism and obfuscation, as I said previously.

    That, coupled with the fact that it is commonly known and verifiable that cyclonic weather has been a meter higher than my obs, validates my claim.

    East coast TGs are also consistent with my claim.

    You’ve got nothing to offer but the gravy meter.

    You are shot, bern.

  84. #85 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “I wouldn’t dream of telling a genius like you WHY anything.”

    We know.

    Spankers, you still seem to think the entire world is made up of one location you’ve found in the world that you don’t live anywhere near but has a record of sea level being higher 67 years ago.

    You never lived there.

    You’re making the whole thing up.

    And THAT is why you’ll never tell us WHY anything.

    Because you don’t know why.

  85. #86 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “I’m sure you’re fertile imagination can come up with something.”

    Taking all evidence into consideration, the conclusion is: you’re a moron, spankers.

  86. #87 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “Instead of frothing and ranting, bern have you checked the highest flood surge ever recorded in Moreton Bay?”

    Your point being..?

  87. #88 spangled drongo
    January 23, 2013

    And wowsie’s about half as bright as bern.

    Nothing to say, only to spray.

  88. #89 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    And not even Spakers here knows what he’s talking about.

    Nothing to say, only to spray.

  89. #90 Bernard J.
    January 23, 2013

    I wouldn’t dream of telling a genius like you WHY anything.

    But may I offer a suggestion? Check the temperature variations for the period.

    What, you mean global warming melting ice and expanding water, thereby raising sea level…?

    “I don’t know any places in other parts of Australia that build to that poor standard – and Drongo, I’ve lived a stone’s throw from salt water for most of my life, in several states”.

    …Not only does this happen in many parts of this country…

    Really?

    In that case you should be able to point to those many parts of the country where infrastructure experiences king tide flooding twice per year.

    Bern, when you are too stupid to understand that perfect summer weather around Moreton Bay doesn’t involve low barometric pressures supported by the fact that there have been no cyclones in December in the years I quoted [if at all] I am forced to ignore your distractions, obscurantism and obfuscation, as I said previously.

    You mean you are forced to ignore my relevant questions and pertinent points because you are unable to answer them.

    1) You haven’t demonstrated that your king tide events occurred during “perfect summer weather”.

    2) As has been noted previously, king tides are principly a January phenomenon.

    Answer the questions, Drongo. heck, if I am so wrong and obscurist, you should be able to devastate me with a detailed and evidenced rebuttal to all of my points. Instead, you run away like a girl running from a spider.

    That, coupled with the fact that it is commonly known and verifiable that cyclonic weather has been a meter higher than my obs, validates my claim.

    Just how does a cyclonic surge height validate your claim that an unevidenced historic king tide height, confounded by multiple other parameters, disproves global sea level rise?

    Remember, you have not yet answered my question about any king tide heights in the early 20th century that were below those of the 21st century. By your logic, even a single king tide back then that was lower than any now ‘proves’ sea level rise. Can your geriatric brains trust with the photographic memory and the encyclopædic logbooks demonstrate that all king tides back then flooded the lighthouse lawn, and was your river wall mark similarly always topped in its infant years?

    East coast TGs are also consistent with my claim.

    Really? Pictures please.

  90. #91 FrankD
    January 23, 2013

    Seas 1.5 meters higher 77 years ago.
    Bang on, Spangles – that’s why Venice was encased in a glass dome in 1936, and was only accessible by submarine until 1972. My Grandad told me and he went there – I’ve seen his photos of Mount Vesuvius to prove it.

    And there used to be signs on the Victoria Embayment in London requiring people to raise their centreboards if they were sailing on to Buckingham Beach House. Then SL dropped and they took down the signs and renamed it Victorian Embankment.

    Seriously, who makes this shit up? Anyone who is interested might want to check Ozcoasts maps’ to what 1.1 metres SLR would look like in Spankies area, amongst others. Whatever their feeding them at the retirement home, I want some!

  91. #92 spangled drongo
    January 24, 2013

    So bern and RS have now got to the point of denying simple addition and subtraction.

    Ideology is a wonderful thing.

  92. #93 chek
    January 24, 2013

    Too true Spanky.
    Oh, and your precious ‘obs’ aren’t.
    They’re memories you’ve recorded nowhere (except in the past three years you’ve been a Codlingwhore, and prone to human error and wish fulfilments, even more so in your case.

  93. #94 Bernard J.
    January 24, 2013

    So bern and RS have now got to the point of denying simple addition and subtraction.

    How do you arrive at that conclusion? I present numbers, you don’t, I do the arithmetic that any primary school child can do, that you seem to ignore as if your life depended on it.

    Where’s the water going Drongo, and what physical process is putting it there?

    Numbers please, and show your working. References please, and show your links.

    Ideology is a wonderful thing.

    Yes, we know that you cleave unto your ideology like a babe suckling at her mother’s teat, but in the real world we use science.

    In three years you haven’t presented anything that even remotely resembles any of the components of scientific methodology.

  94. #95 Bolt for PM
    January 24, 2013

    Bernard poses: “What about the rest of the Australians here? Do your local shore-dwellers have wet carpet twice a year from meteorologically-benign king tides?”

    Yes indeed, and that’s why I originally found sympathy for SD’s arguments re his local measurements. When I was a boy the large January tides frequently overtopped the esplanade at Hervey Bay in Queensland and could result in minor local flooding of homes and businesses.

    I was not aware of that happening more recently, though it must be said I no longer live there. I believe that the same tides in the past couple of years have not overtopped the esplanade however some steps have been taken in intervening years to prevent this.

    http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/did-you-get-photo-king-tide-hitting-beach/1715147/

  95. #96 Vince Whirlwind
    January 24, 2013

    Lucky science isn’t based on a random cranky pensioners’ vague memories, then, eh?

  96. #97 Bernard J.
    January 24, 2013

    When I was a boy the large January tides frequently overtopped the esplanade at Hervey Bay in Queensland and could result in minor local flooding of homes and businesses.

    And what where the meteorological conditions at the time? Can you provide the years that this occurred, so that we can check the weather and oceanographic records?

  97. #98 David B. Benson
    January 24, 2013

    I can hardly believe that this thread sputters on and on…

  98. #99 spangled drongo
    January 24, 2013

    Bernie, I have supplied you with all the details you need to work out for yourself what has been happening at Cleveland Point over the last nearly 80 years supported by a list of cyclones and tide surge heights over that period and a photograph of the last HAT there.

    It is clear to a normal person that king tides have not only NOT risen in recent years in Moreton Bay but have actually fallen.

    Don’t keep asking for the same data when, like Wow and the other Ds here, you only wish to deny them.

    The only thing left for you now is to take that list of cyclones with you down to CP at the next HAT and talk to the old locals.

    It is a waste of time and effort trying to explain any more.

  99. #100 bill
    January 24, 2013

    Actually, I’ve noticed that the ocean is contracting, too, because when I were a lad taking trips with my old grandfather down to Semaphore you used to walk straight off the edge of the foreshore reserve seawall onto the beach, and then it was just a short hop (perhaps over a rather disturbing mass of defunct seagrass if there’d recently been a storm) into St. Vincent’s Gulf.

    I live in Semaphore now, and there is about 100m of well-vegetated sand-dune beyond the foreshore reserve before you can even reach the beach!

    The global ocean must be contracting; it’s the only reasonable explanation.

    Come to think of it, my grandfather’s house in West Croydon has shrunk, too. It was much bigger when I was 7, as was the block it was sited on. So much for the so-called ‘expanding universe’, eh, Science?

    It’s a good thing we have such a store of pedagogic anecdotes to keep Real Science alive, eh ;-)…

Current ye@r *