Sea level rise acceleration

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

CSIRO_GMSL_figure

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

sl_ns_global

 

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

Puls_1

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

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

Comments

  1. #1 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    Now here’s a “skeptic” for us all to wonder at..

    S/he really believes eg that Sydney has 160mm SLR when the tide gauge shows nothing.

    S/he really has to be in love with assumption-based statistics from remote sensing systems as opposed to the real world.

    I bet it can even push all its bathwater up one end while it dries itself.

  2. #2 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    “There’s a lot of it about. And it all seems to come from crank sites”

    You finally talking about science here, Chek?

    That’d be a pleasant surprise.

  3. #3 MikeH
    December 17, 2012

    “Alec Rawls points out just which way is up with the scientific method”

    When a denier starts lecturing you about the scientific method, you know that you have them beat. Rawls will forever after be known as the clown who leaked a copy of the draft IPCC report and then read it upside down.

  4. #4 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    Here’s that Sydney tide gauge data since 1914:

    http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/196.php

    Skeptic thinks it should be remove in favour of virtual reality.

    Like Michael Mann did to the MWP with his hokey stick.

  5. #5 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    “Rawls will forever after be known as the clown who leaked a copy of the draft IPCC report and then read it upside down”

    So Mike, tell us then in your own words what you think is wrong with Rawls’ claim.

    And while you are at it, why you think that a self proclaimed “open and accountable” institution which the IPCC insist they are, should even be concerned?

  6. #6 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    But even before that Mike, just to install you on a half-respectable cred-pedestal, so that I can believe you, tell me what it is you think I am denying?

  7. #7 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    Prof Steven Sherwood is a fine one to lecture on correct proceedure to Alex Rawls.

    Back in 2008 he did a paper on locating the missing hot spot and in a colour graph he put zero warming in RED so that it looked like warming even when there was none:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/sherwood-2008-where-you-can-find-a-hot-spot-at-zero-degrees/

  8. #8 john byatt
    December 17, 2012

    -2 X 2 = -4

    does that help SD ?

  9. #9 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    You’ll have to tell me which is temperature and which is feedback, John

  10. #10 Jeff Harvey
    December 17, 2012

    What is wrong with Rawls claim is that he cherry-picks. Moreover, he has no background at all in climate science and he clearly enters the discussion with a pre-determiend worldview.

    As I said earlier, deniers tend to argue that in the absence of incontrovertible proof of a process we might as well start at zero. This is proof why Jonas and GSW on the crazy-train exile thread have no scientific arguments at all, thus revealing their Dunning-Kruger credentials (and before he claims that I am afraid of his arguments, this is for you Jonas – you don’t intimidate me one little iota).

    Their take on Sandy is a perfect example. Its the way the climate change deniers phrase their arguments that shows how most of them have never been into a science lab before. No scientist worth his PhD would ever say that one storm can be attributed to AGW, let alone draw a correlation with atmospheric C02. This is like saying that one sneeze is indication that a person is ill or has the flu. Essentially we must look at many symptoms before establishing causation. And their are plenty of planetary symptoms which show indeed that the climate is going through a rapid change. Sandy is one small symptom that alone means little. But in combination we can establish a link. The way the deniers phrase the arguments is deliberately dishonest – or, perhaps, simply a reflection of their profound ignorance of how science works.

    Is it warming? Certainly. Biotic indicators across the planet are showing that, in both terrestrial and marine ecosystems. SD here relies on one abiotic proxy (SLR) to downplay warming. But the sheer volume of biotic proxies are proof that it is indeed warming. This week I will be attending the annual British Ecological Society Annual Symposium and one entire session is devoted to talks showing examples of species, populations and systems responding to climate warming.

    The next step, in full knowledge that it tis warming, is to establish what is forcing this. The vast majority of the scientific community agree that the human combustion of fossil fuels is almost certainly the most important factor. Each year evidence grows in support of this argument. Against his background we have a shrinking number of individuals and groups (it was never large to begin with) doing everything in their power to sow doubt. This explains why scientists like Naomi Oreskes have taken it upon themselves to better understand the motives underlying this denial industry.

  11. #11 MikeH
    December 17, 2012

    Actually Rawls will also be remember for this piece of tinfoil hattery. According to Rawls, the Flight 93 Memorial in Pennsylvania has been secretly constructed as a Mosque.
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28649

    My guess is that Rawls is hanging on to reality by his fingertips.

  12. #12 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    Jeff, that comment is one whole tissue of denial, contradiction and messenger-shooting.

    Rawls and other authors have pointed out that there has to be some other form of solar amplification and that it is scientifically well known [if not well understood] and so it got mentioned in the SOD.

    Sherwood wants to return to the FOD to hide this. He is a completely unscientific denier.

    Don’t go the same way. Be honest with yourself.

    I just happen to have observed that SLs locally, for the last ~70 years, have not risen and that coincides with Brisbane and Sydney tide gauges.

    Pretty basic stuff but something you don’t seem to be able to accept. But from that I know that there is not much happening outside natural variation wrt global warming.

    Hang sceptical, you can do it.

  13. #13 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    “My guess is that Rawls is hanging on to reality by his fingertips.”

    Just who is hanging onto reality here might be arguable. What has this got to do with the science?

  14. #14 Skeptic
    December 17, 2012

    ignoring real world obs

    moving the goalposts right along:

    assumption-based statistics from remote sensing systems as opposed to the real world.

    Yes, when dumbo doesn’t like “real world obs” they become, without further explanation, “assumption-based statistics from remote sensing systems”. Life in denial is so wonderful.

  15. #15 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    Faux skeptic, have you got any idea how those pretty pictures of yours were generated?

    Garbage in, Gospel out. Yeah!

  16. #16 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @spangled

    Hopefully not O/T but there is some concern about the accuracy of the satellite derived SLR figures. There’s a presentation here,

    http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/meetings/2011-06/bar-sever.pdf

    that deals with one of the issues. A discrepancy between tide gauge records jason/topex derived figures is known and may be attributed to inaccurate positioning to the Terrestial Reference Frame. From the slides,

    Evidence of a Problem
    .High post-fit residuals for GPS43 (1st IIR sat)
    .Bias in Topex GPS antenna position
    .Drift in Jason GPS antenna position
    .Drift in GPS realization of TRF Scale

    The presentation quantifies the “error budget” for Sea Level Measurement. Admittedly these guys are pushing for a new NASA mission “GRASP” that will give better calibration down to 0.1mm/yr and may be playing up existing issues.

    So it may be in the near future the satellite SLR data is revised down (or I suppose up). We don’t know yet, cause for some concern at the moment anyway.

  17. #17 MikeH
    December 17, 2012

    “Rawls and other authors have pointed out that there has to be some other form of solar amplification…”

    Otherwise they will appear to be complete drongos.

  18. #18 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    Yes and it’s well documented, so what does that make Sherwood?

  19. #19 MikeH
    December 17, 2012

    I understand Rawls has a homeopathic explanation. i.e. there is no actual solar forcing but the temperature acts as if there is the “memory” of one. For a man who can see a “mosque” in the Flt 93 Memorial this is child’s play – also barking mad but what is mad between drongos.

  20. #20 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    Thanks GSW.

    They are forever reviewing and recalibrating these remote systems. Look at the way they are dancing with GRACE.

    And remember the “problems” they had with Envisat when it wouldn’t show any SLR until it was reprogrammed?

    How much assumption can a koala bear?

    What really is amazing is that so many people swear it is Gospel.

    A different Gospel every week, mind, but Gospel none the less.

  21. #21 John
    December 17, 2012

    Just who is hanging onto reality here might be arguable. What has this got to do with the science?

    Everything. If his belief system is clouded by inane conspiracy theories, how are we supposed to trust his interpretations of anything?

    Proven by his latest failure – we can’t. He’s a froth-mouthed, loony-eyed madman who sees conspiracies under every bed.

    Tend not to take those people seriously myself.

    Rawls and other authors have pointed out that there has to be some other form of solar amplification and that it is scientifically well known [if not well understood] and so it got mentioned in the SOD.

    Sherwood wants to return to the FOD to hide this. He is a completely unscientific denier.

    And Sherwood and others have shown they are wrong, time and time again. The deniers really have kicked a spectacular own goal this time. I can see their heart just isn’t in this Rawls crap, but they have to repeat it until the next big bombshell is unveiled. Sad, really. Gutless little moaners.

    I just happen to have observed that SLs locally, for the last ~70 years

    Buuuuuuuullshit.

  22. #22 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    Was Rawls the only author to mention GCRs?

    Do you deny their existence?

    What is the point of trying to eliminate scientific fact?

    If they really are responsible for a large part of that 0.7c warming why do you care?

    You sound like a religious crank.

  23. #23 John
    December 17, 2012

    Couple of observations over the release:

    1. When there are changes between the draft and the launch, the deniers will cry “conspiracy!”. After all, drafts never change and any change is proof of silencing dissent!

    2. Deniers hate the IPCC, yet they crave the legitimacy of either being included in the AR5 or by being an “expert reviewer”. Hypocrites. Apparently their little NIPCC just doesn’t cut it at the end of the day.

  24. #24 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @spangled

    “How much assumption can a koala bear?”
    ;)

    Yes, unrelated point. I had a look at the problems with the argo data a while back. I think it was thru 2007 the data actually showed ocean cooling, but they introduced a screening process to remove anomalous “faulty” data and the warming appeared! No reason to suspect anything untoward happened, it’s just unsatisfying knowing you’re not getting all the data and a degree of human influence introduced.

  25. #25 John
    December 17, 2012

    Spangled Drongo, I’m not the one spinning grand UN conspiracies out of cherry-picked paragraphs released by a tin-foil hatted madman.

  26. #26 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    [Trolling deleted]

  27. #27 John
    December 17, 2012

    it’s just unsatisfying knowing you’re not getting all the data and a degree of human influence introduced.

    Don’t worry, I’m sure Spangled Drongo has been recording the temperatures at a trout farm since 1797.

  28. #28 John
    December 17, 2012

    John, just because you have been too stupid to look out the window all your life

    Really? Is that where the cosmic rays are?

  29. #29 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    John, deal with Rawls’ message and put your gun away.

    He’s making a very scientific point.

    Sherwood isn’t.

  30. #30 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @John

    ” I’m sure Spangled Drongo has been recording the temperatures at a trout farm since 1797″

    I think that’s unlikely John. But I never cease to amused by what those on the alarmist side of the argument find it possible to believe – it’s like comedy hour!. You’ll be denying Ice Ages next!
    ;)

  31. #31 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    GSW,

    They love the cold past. And they love making it colder.

    “The future is assured, it’s only the past that will change”

  32. #32 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @spangled

    Don’t know if you saw it, but Lindzen made a joke about that at a recent talk, went something like this,

    “It’s always difficult to predict the future, but in Climate Science it’s becoming increasingly difficult to predict the past!”
    ;)

  33. #33 John
    December 17, 2012

    Sorry, which point is Rawls making that I should be paying attention to? The point that Obama is hiding Islamic imagery in the United 93 memorial?

    The man is a nut.

  34. #34 spangled drongo
    December 17, 2012

    “Really? Is that where the cosmic rays are?”

    Says it all, really.

  35. #35 John
    December 17, 2012

    “It’s always difficult to predict the future”

    Lindzen would know about the difficulty of predicting the future. His models are the lousiest of all (John McLean excepted – whatever happened to that guy?)

  36. #36 John
    December 17, 2012

    Lighten up Drongo. It’s a joke. You po-faced, thin-skinned deniers have no sense of humour.

    It’s sad watching you wither away into a witless old curmudgeon shouting at the sky and believing the interpretation of a noted lunatic over that of the actual scientist who edited the chapter.

  37. #37 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @John

    I think you’ve missed the point. You would be hard pushed to find any of the IPCC models that were doing a good job on future climates – it’s difficult, lots of uncertainty.

    The past though, there’s as much adjustment been applied to that as there is signal. As Sprangled pointed out – the past just keeps getting colder. MWP and LIA wax and wane.
    ;)

    “John McLean excepted – whatever happened to that guy?”

    Die Hard 5?

  38. #38 Paul S
    December 17, 2012

    spangled drongo,

    Paul, thanks for that but sea water isn’t like trachite lava. It finds equilibrium quickly.

    I suspect not quite as quickly as you think, but it wouldn’t be measured in decades certainly. As I said though, and as indicated by the long list of damming projects I linked, the phenomenon of terrestrial water impoundment has been an ongoing project over the past 50 years at least. While the ocean has been moving towards achieving a quasi-equilibrium condition over that time, the continuously reducing outflow will have maintained an impetus towards lowering local sea level.

    I should note this isn’t a formal attribution I’m trying to push. Terrestrial water impoundment via dams is just one possible cause of lowering relative sea level, but it fits with the massive-scale damming projects that have occurred in Queensland so I’m suggesting that may have been a major factor.

    Other common causes of local relative sea level decrease can be climatic – e.g. the signal of an ENSO pattern, in this case La Nina, is very clear on the satellite altimeter trend map for the past 20 years. As such we can see that the coastlines on the East Pacific have seen static or falling sea levels over the past 20 years, whereas the West Pacific has seen mostly rapid sea level rise. This is one reason why a climatic cause doesn’t obviously fit for Queensland – that area appears to go against the wider regional trend.

    Another cause could be a change in the elevation of the land or sea bed. This is a major factor in some parts of the world but not Australia, so can be mostly discounted unless some seismic activity has pushed the land upwards in that area.

    Actually there is a further reason why decreasing river outflow would reduce local sea level, aside from simple mass change. Rivers discharge freshwater into a saltwater ocean and freshwater is more dense than saltwater. Accordingly the continuing flow of freshwater can cause the sea local to the estuary to be less dense and therefore higher than the surrounding ocean, known as a “freshwater bulge”. Therefore reduced outflow would increase local salinity and reduce the height of the bulge. Relative to its past height this would lower local sea level (downward trend) though may be still be “higher” in absolute terms than the surrounding ocean.

    Show me your data, Paul.

    The data are plotted at the top of this page: satellite altimetry with coverage over much of the global ocean for the past 20 years and global reconstructions from tide gauge records around the world. The links I gave to the Australian tide gauge records earlier were to PSMSL, who are record-keepers for all the world’s tide gauge data: You can find the rest of the individual site data here: http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/

  39. #39 John
    December 17, 2012

    I think you’ve missed the point. You would be hard pushed to find any of the IPCC models that were doing a good job on future climates – it’s difficult, lots of uncertainty.

    I think you missed the point that the man mocking climate models and predictions of future warming made the worst predictions of all (besides John “2011 will be the coldest year since 1956″ McLean).

    GSW, look at the graph I just gave you and tell me which models are closer, Hansen’s or Lindzen’s. And you explain to me why this still won’t change your mind.

  40. #40 John
    December 17, 2012

    Spangled Drongo, can we see your estuary data? Pretty please?

  41. #41 Lionel A
    December 17, 2012

    So Lionel, you think that going to sea in a 45k ton aircraft carrier is “hands on”?

    That’s not hands on as far as confronting the sea is concerned.

    That’s bloody looxury! With all the artificial aids and literally hundreds, if not thousands, of other “hands on” to keep you safe.

    Oh! So you have experienced life on a carrier then.

    Besides, where did I mention that was my only sea going experience?

    Once again you are making stupid assumptions on little knowledge.

    Are you another face of Jonas N? Similar modus etc.

  42. #42 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @John

    I haven’t clicked the link but I think Lindzen’s “model” was a comment that he didn’t think temperatures would change much.
    They went up for a few years and then not much afterwards. It’s the future, there are uncertainties, but I think we can all agree they’re not doing that much at the moment.

    Thats why Philip Stott at the Met office and others are running around saying “something it wrong[Forecasts vs Real World]”. I have a horrible feeling though he thinks the Real World is broken, unreliable and should be used for future Climate Science work, we shall see.

  43. #43 Wow
    December 17, 2012

    “Paul, thanks for that but sea water isn’t like trachite lava. It finds equilibrium quickly.”

    If that were true, we wouldn’t get tides.

  44. #44 Wow
    December 17, 2012

    “John, deal with Rawls’ message ”

    He and we have.

    It’s a load of tripe, illegally obtained and incorrect.

  45. #45 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @John,

    Sorry john, the sarcastic comment should read “the Real World is broken, unreliable and should NOT be used for future Climate Science work”

  46. #46 Paul S
    December 17, 2012

    freshwater is more dense than saltwater

    Should be less dense

  47. #47 Wow
    December 17, 2012

    “Was Rawls the only author to mention GCRs?”

    No.

    “Do you deny their existence?”

    No.

    “What is the point of trying to eliminate scientific fact?”

    That’s what we’d like to ask Rawls. He’s doing just that.

    “If they really are responsible for a large part of that 0.7c warming why do you care?”

    They aren’t.

    We care about people lying saying they are.

  48. #48 Jeff Harvey
    December 17, 2012

    “I think it was thru 2007 the data actually showed ocean cooling”

    Gee. Its strange then why so many marine species are being found establishing breeding populations well to the north of their known ranges. This includes both verts and inverts. I think they are better indicators of marine ocean temperatures than GSW and his denier chums.

  49. #49 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @Jeff

    Sorry Jeff, as usual you missed the point as well. The discussion was about “adjustments” to data. Data’s not your thing we know, involves sums. Still at least you’re trying to think, who knows, one day you might even get there.
    ;)

  50. #50 Lionel A
    December 17, 2012

    You sound like a religious crank.

    Ah! The inevitable retort of projection.

    You are the one with a belief system, relying as you do on crank magnetism sites and such as Rawls for your information.

    Was Rawls the only author to mention GCRs?

    Of course you do realise that we have been around this stuff for more than a dog-watch and thus appreciate the reality of GCRs. What we question is their importance Vis-à-vis twentieth century to twenty first century warming, irrespective of Svenmark’s failed attempts to make persuasive arguments.

    Some of how Svensmark’s arguments fail to answer all conditions is related in William James Burroughs’ ‘Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach‘ a reading of which will fill in many of the obvious gaps in your knowledge. You will discover there, and from the scientific literature, that Svensmark’s hypothesis does not hold up well when higher latitude data are considered.

    Note, that with all suggestions to read a book it is important to keep in mind that one should follow the notes to cited sources and the scientific literature where relevant. In books of quality these citations will be valid and worthwhile persuing, quite unlike the record of those from such as Lomborg, Plimer and Montford where you will find much obfuscation. It seems, from your arguments, that you have already been drawing from one or more of the poisoned wells.

  51. #51 Skeptic
    December 17, 2012

    Dumbo, have you got any idea how those real world obs of yours were generated?

    Garbage in, Gospel out. Yeah!

  52. #52 Paul S
    December 17, 2012

    Jeff Harvey,

    Ocean temperature change is not homogeneous globally. In particular there is a clear difference between the Northern and Southern hemispheres. That you refer to Northward migrations indicates you are talking about populations in the NH. It may be the case that these populations are moving due to ocean warming in, say, the North Atlantic but that doesn’t automatically mean the oceans are warming globally. For that the best estimates are probably from averaging of ARGO floats.

  53. #53 Lionel A
    December 17, 2012

    “Paul, thanks for that but sea water isn’t like trachite lava. It finds equilibrium quickly.”

    If that were true, we wouldn’t get tides.

    Neither would there be such a thing as a seiche.

  54. #54 Lionel A
    December 17, 2012

    Paul S

    I quite agree with you point overall but,

    Jeff probably had in mind the range movement of species (he even indicates this in his wording) rather than migration per se.

    My interest in the fauna, and flora, around the coast of the UK certainly indicates that climate is pushing species further north. Unfortunately not all species react to the same environmental changes for daylight length can be be the trigger for some species which then become out of kilter with those moving in response to temperature change with a resultant mismatch of food sources or other services and disruption to the life cycle of both.

  55. #55 Lionel A
    December 17, 2012

    Here we go, the truth in a nutshell although a large one if you follow all references which is what you should do if a true sceptic and not a nasty little denier.

    And be sure to watch this on Solar output and GCRs including how CLOUD research was distorted to obscure the truth and a take-down of the odious Durkin.

  56. #56 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @Lionel

    “the truth in a nutshell” from Joe Romm and greenman3610? you’ll be posting Al Gore links next.
    ;)

  57. #57 chek
    December 17, 2012

    “the truth in a nutshell” from Joe Romm and greenman3610? you’ll be posting Al Gore links next”.

    And you wouldn’t be able to refute any of the three, Griselda.

  58. #58 chek
    December 17, 2012

    … just as you failed with those two.

  59. #59 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @chek

    I was merely pointing out that ascribing the label “truth” to anything posted by Romm et al is a either a further sign that one is detached from reality or sarcasm. I assume this was a “funny” on Lionel’s part, the other intrepretation doesn’t bear thinking about.

    Enjoy your dreams chek!
    ;)

  60. #60 chek
    December 17, 2012

    When deniers have nothing, they say nothing but are incredible windbags about saying it. Especially you Griselda.

  61. #61 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @chek

    Fair enough chek, continue to worship at the feet of apostle Romm if you wish – your place in Climate Heaven will be assured.

    Ahmen!
    ;)

  62. #62 chek
    December 17, 2012

    So you’re a religious nutter too Griselda? That explains a lot.

  63. #63 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @chek

    “That explains a lot”

    Not to you chek. it’s been tried. Failure to comprehend is one of your Climate Science virtues.
    ;)

  64. #64 chek
    December 17, 2012

    Au contraire, Griselda.
    The only remaining mystery about you is how even a desperate old crank like Jonarse tolerates your inanity.

    Otherwise you’re just another ten-a-penny denier flake like your new pal sparky dingbat. Ignorance truly is the great leveller and there you are, in at ground zero and flashing smilies on your first date.

  65. #65 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @chek

    Come on chek, no need to get all grumpy. We’re only having a bit of fun with you. You’re worth it here for entertainment value alone. What next, maybe you’ll actually read some of the “primary literature”, as jeff calls it, and report back ;) .

    Your interpretation of the science, such as it is, will be compulsive viewing! (Try to stay away from the ones with sums, you’ll confuse jeff)
    ;)

  66. […] 2012/12/12: Deltoid: Sea level rise acceleration […]

  67. #67 joni
    December 17, 2012

    At least SE Queensland does not have a problem with King Tides flooding residential areas…. oh wait…. what’s this is see…

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/king-tides-and-big-seas-forecast-lead-into-a-wet-christmas-for-brisbane-and-southeast/story-fndo45r1-1226536445412

    “A KING tide has spilled over into Brisbane’s suburban streets this morning, with reports of water in New Farm Park, Albion and Newstead.”

  68. #68 chek
    December 17, 2012

    “We’re only having a bit of fun with you”

    That multiple personality disorder is getting harder for you to control Griselda.

    “What next, maybe you’ll actually read some of the “primary literature”, ”

    Still waiting for your answer to Stu’s challenge to name even one of the several hundred post-2008 peer-reviewed papers that enabled your blithe, handwaving ‘no new relevant science’ comment.

    Just kidding Griselda – I already know you’ve read nothing at all and just pretended to while trying to look good for your boyfriends.

  69. #69 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @Joni

    Anybody claiming a link with CAGW or is it just king tide + weather?

  70. #70 joni
    December 17, 2012

    GSW – just making an observation on king tide floods… that’s all.

  71. #71 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @chek

    I’ll take that as a “No” chek, you’re not going to read any of the primary literature. Shame, you’re outlook on what constitutes “evidence” my be shaken somewhat, have to understand what it says of course, Ah, see where you’re coming from now, best stay away from them if I were you. Luckily the rest of us are not so “challenged”.

    As for stu, his six years of physics couldn’t assist him with F=ma, took 3 weeks to calm him down. I’ll pass on pushing anything more complicated his way thanks. You may engage with him if you wish, a battle of minds worth tuning in for I would imagine.
    ;)

  72. #72 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @joni

    Not a problem. Had to look up what a “king tide” was- an Oz expression I think. Learned something new.
    ;)

  73. #73 GSW
    December 17, 2012

    @Joni

    Sorry Joni “Learnt something new”
    ;)

  74. #74 Lionel A
    December 17, 2012

    Anybody claiming a link with CAGW or is it just king tide + weather?

    Have you never heard this, ‘Climate trains the boxer, weather throws the punches’?

  75. #75 Lionel A
    December 17, 2012

    Of course what the not well educated and cognitively challenged types like GSW don’t get is that higher water levels at sea, from whatever cause, inhibit the outlet flow of waterways. The flooding of New Farm and Bowen Hills being about 5 miles inland could just be a function of that, although I don’t have a handy contour, elevation, map to check elevation. I could fire up GeoMapApp to check further but it is a little slow.

  76. #76 Wow
    December 17, 2012

    What do you think “temperate maritime” means?

    What do you think “cold” or “warm” or “wet” means when you talk about the weather?

    When you claim “It’s cold today”, you’re comparing the current weather against THE CLIMATE MEAN.

    But you don’t know squat about the weather, do you.

  77. #77 Wow
    December 17, 2012

    “I was merely pointing out that ascribing the label “truth” to anything posted by Romm et al ”

    Do you have any proof of your belief here, or is it pure ad hominem?

  78. #78 John
    December 17, 2012

    I haven’t clicked the link but I think Lindzen’s “model” was a comment that he didn’t think temperatures would change much.
    They went up for a few years and then not much afterwards.

    What a ludicrous interpretation. Models may not get every short term forcing, but long term they have proven to be remarkably robust, which is more than I can say for anything Lindzen has said over the past twenty years.

  79. #79 Lionel A
    December 17, 2012

    Drongo drops, clearly not understanding which one is the scientist drops this little gem:

    Prof Steven Sherwood is a fine one to lecture on correct proceedure to Alex Rawls.

    Back in 2008 he did a paper on locating the missing hot spot and in a colour graph he put zero warming in RED so that it looked like warming even when there was none:,

    So using a colour that indicates ‘hot’ on plumbing is illegal for use in a diagram. Well, well. But I will check this one out for you may be confused anyway.

    Drongo drops then links to another non-scientist:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/sherwood-2008-where-you-can-find-a-hot-spot-at-zero-degrees/

    Sheesh! I guess your short term memory has lost that list of mine that went like this:

    But of course to consider this one has to be aware of the bigger picture which is something that the faux-science sites [1] steer their readerships away from.

    [1]
    We Use Wishful Thinking,
    Cardinal Puff,
    CO2 nonsense
    JunketScience
    Jo Novalue
    Climate tawdry
    ClimateDespot

  80. #80 chek
    December 17, 2012

    “What a ludicrous interpretation”

    But John, being a dernier entails a whole lifetime of ludicrous interpretations. ‘Ludicrous’ is what makes the whole philosophy hang together, as in when the most ludicrous of looney-toon cranks claim the rights to “the scientific method” (cf Delingpole, Rawls, Nova, Watts, McIntyre, Jonarse, Professor Tom Cobley et al).

  81. #81 spangled drongo
    December 18, 2012

    Now that you Doltoids have been off-thread-and-shot-all-the-messengers, have you managed to come up with any data that refutes my Moreton Bay obs [as supported by east coast tide gauges] that there is no accelerating SLR?

    And I don’t mean the non-data of wishful assumptions as applied to remote sensors.

    You know, the ones they have to keep adjusting as they progressively discover how wrong they are.

  82. #82 john byatt
    December 18, 2012

    Rawls is to dumb to understand

    amplifying a negative number just gives you a bigger negative number, In other words, Rawls is arguing for a bigger solar cooling effect since 1980 but is to stupid to realise it .

  83. #83 David B. Benson
    December 18, 2012

    Wow & Lionel A — Water behaves according to the Euler equations, being in continual, local equilibrium of all the forces. So tides and seiches
    http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/waves/swf/wave_seiche.html
    are one class of solutions to the Euler equations. Ordinary traveling surface waves are another class of solutions.

  84. #84 Neil White
    December 18, 2012

    spangled drongo (a few comments upthread):

    In fact the PSMSL data for Moreton Bay data that you offered shows clear evidence of acceleration – the trend over the latter part of the record is higher than the trend over the earlier part (sounds like acceleration to me)! Having said that, the length of records like this is far too short to show acceleration anyway – especially given the amount of noise in the system. The same goes for silly attempts to fit quadratics and look for break points in 20-year records as Tim Lambert quite rightly points out at the start of the thread.

    If you want to talk about acceleration in GMSL it’s best to look at the paleo data – e.g. salt marsh data from the last few centuries. This all shows a clear increase in the rate of sea level rise in the late 19th and/or the early 20th Century (consistent with the graph right at the top).

    The paleo data agrees pretty well with the long tide gauge records where they are reasonably close together. If you want to actually learn something about this I suggest that you look up papers by Kemp et al (PNAS, 2011), and various papers by Gehrels, Donnelly and others over recent years.

    Neil White

    PS the early part of that Brisbane record is almost certainly wrong – it looks like there is some datum issue between the different sections of the record.

    PPS Somehow the rate of GMSL rise has gone from near zero over recent millenia to 2 then 3+ mm/year in recent decades.

  85. #85 John
    December 18, 2012

    Drongo, I want to see your ~70 years of Moreton Bay data. Where is it?

  86. #86 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    David, not quite.

    If this were true, you’d not get floods (the water running over the land is not in equilibrium!).

    For such bulges/dips as the reduction in MSL off Aus because of the heavy rains, this is because the water has to take time to travel the hundreds of miles necessary over the ocean to fill this dip, and the water runoff from land takes even longer to get back to the sea (and will therefore take longer to reach equilibrium with the rest of the ocean since there will be more water off the coast than there “ought”).

    Meanwhile, another event is making water move off somewhere else quicker than nonturbulent flow. Getting equilibrium requires the state stays static long enough to attain it, remember.

    If water flowed very easily back to its equilibrium point then the tides would be a few cm, the gravipotential isometer for the sun-earth-moon system.

  87. #87 spangled drongo
    December 18, 2012

    Neil, increase in salt marsh area can be due to SL fall just as reduction can be due to erosion or mangrove incursion.

    Experts agree that it is very difficult to identify the links between salt marsh change and SL change but to claim that this dubious paleo evidence is better than visual evidence is not living in the real world.

    John, if you’d bothered to read my earlier comments you would have found it.

    But essentially it is about witnessing king tides during the 1940s annually flooding the lawn and having to put a levy bank around the well which was our only water supply by mid summer. These same tides [last Friday and Sat] and in recent decades are 20 to 30 cms lower.

  88. #88 Skeptic
    December 18, 2012

    Dumbo:

    And I don’t mean the non-data of wishful assumptions as applied to remote sensors.

    Did it ever occur to you to check other tide gauge data from places around the world to confirm satellite data before dismissing it “wishful assumptions”?

    Didn’t think so.

  89. #89 chek
    December 18, 2012

    Spanky Dildo, aren’t you leaving out the crucial information that the inland river system you’re taking your curiously non-specific observations from was re-engineered over those 70 years and therefore you’re not comparing like with like? Or has that location changed since your last Novacall here?

  90. #90 spangled drongo
    December 18, 2012

    Chek, pay attention. If you want to debate something at least read what I said. This is at Cleveland Point in Moreton Bay.

    You need to go back and read my comments too.

    Skeptic, can you reconcile world tide gauges with satellites?

    Didn’t think so.

  91. #91 chek
    December 18, 2012

    Sorry Spanky, it’s easy to lose track of just what version of what story you are telling sometimes.

  92. #92 Lionel A
    December 18, 2012

    Wow & Lionel A — Water behaves according to the Euler equations…

    Of course, I’ll not argue with that having delved into oceanography.

    For Drongo’s information oceanography is one vast subject the study of which could be of value to you. Then you would not drop so many drongo clangers such as this prime example:

    <blockquoteAnd I don’t mean the non-data of wishful assumptions as applied to remote sensors.

    So you don’t know how global sea levels are measured and recorded. The focus on one area is the type of thing we see with Anthony Watts’ UHI frothings, as if the continental USA is representative of the whole globe, including that large portion that is water.

    And it is into the oceanic water that much of the positive heat energy systemic imbalance increase has gone thus the thermal expansion that is one portion of overall sea level rise.

    Something else to consider is that the much maligned and ‘alarmist’ labelled IPCC ‘almost certainly underestimates future sea level rise‘ go here for full explanation..

    Note this is based upon the work of researchers and scientists in the field, many of whom brave discomfort and hazards to collect raw data. This in contrast to those bloggers who sit in comfort churning out faux-science on blogs the intellectual equivalents of The Daily Sport.

  93. #93 Paul S
    December 18, 2012

    can you reconcile world tide gauges with satellites?

    Yes. Prandi 2009 is a good reference for this question. Figure 1 shows a map overlaying dispersed tide gauge trends on top of a global field of satellite trends. The match is remarkably good.

    Figure 2 plots the global average from the satellite data with the coastal average from their tide gauge ensemble over a 15-year period and find very similar trends in both. It also plots a coastal altimetry time series (from satellites) and shows that the temporal variability is a very good qualitative, though not perfect quantitative, match with the averaged tide gauge series.

  94. #94 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Neil, increase in salt marsh area can be due to SL fall”

    How?

    OR is this just proclamation?

  95. #95 spangled drongo
    December 18, 2012

    Paul S, what they do say is that coastal SLs do rise at the same rate as global SLs [who’d a thought] which is apoint I have been trying to make.

    This study is only over a very short period. ’93-’07. And only 91 “carefully selected” tide gauges

    Also it does not support SLR acceleration.

  96. #96 GWB's Nemesis
    December 18, 2012

    SD’s reference point is Cleveland Point in Moreton Bay. If you want to see how vacuous SD’s argument is then take a look at the location on Google Earth – it is at lat: -27.511 long: 153.290. You will see that Cleveland Point is in a very complex coastal setting, with a partially enclosed water body with active barrier islands offshore. The coastline of the bay has been heavily developed. Cleveland Point itself appears to be a spit that has been developed; there is a huge, comparatively modern housing / marine development just on the margin of it.

    Anyone who has even the most vague notion of coastal processes will know that such a dynamic and changing environment will show continual changes of marine processes. It is also highly sensitive the effects of wind – so for example a strong wind from the northeast would hugely amplify the high tide in a location such as this. Thus, SD’s claim that his observations that King Tides are not as big as they used to be might or might not be correct, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with sea level rise.

    It is possible to come up with a location that would be less suitable for analysing sea level rise (and other Denialists have tried here before), but only just.

    To be clear, SD’s observations are completely irrelevant to any discussion about global sea level rise. It does look like a nice place to live though!

  97. #97 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    But local SLR is not global SLR which is a point you’ve assiduously avoided.

  98. #98 spangled drongo
    December 18, 2012

    Wow, you’re observant Wow.

    Have you ever noticed that when the tide goes out you have a much bigger salt marsh than when it comes in.

  99. #99 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Have you noticed you only get salt marshes where it is below the high tide minima? Therefore if the sea level rises, you get more salt marshes.

    And no, you don’t get more salt marshes when the tide goes out. You have more dry land when the tide goes out. It was salt marsh when inundated and it was salt marsh when abandoned by the sea.

    You really are a seriously fuckwitted idiot, aren’y you, glittery dumbass?

  100. #100 john
    December 18, 2012

    So drongo’s vaunted 70 years of data amount to vague approximations in his memory. Excuse me if I don’t reel back in shock at this game changing blow.Meanwhile real equipment is doing real real measuring, but wait! Drongo has his memories!

    Are your memories peer-reviewed perchance?

Current ye@r *