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 Paul S
    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.

    Your question was: ‘can you reconcile world tide gauges with satellites?’

    Are you now satisfied the answer is ‘Yes’. If not, give specific reasons.

  2. #2 spangled drongo
    December 18, 2012

    GWB,coastal developments do not reduce SLs you twerp otherwise we could solve SLR problems simply by more development.

    And the coast is exposed to wind! Surely not.

    Yet still the sea doesn’t rise.

    Cleveland Point has much the same development as it has had for the last century. It is a low lying, flat point that sticks out into the bay. The coastline is rock and coral. The grass levels and landscaping are the same as they were in the ’40s when our family lived there. You are looking at the Raby Bay development to the west which is new development. It has no influence on CP tides.

  3. #3 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “GWB,coastal developments do not reduce SLs”

    But river development does.

    Duh.

  4. #4 spangled drongo
    December 18, 2012

    Wow doesn’t even know what a salt marsh is or looks like.

  5. #5 spangled drongo
    December 18, 2012

    John, if you can’t understand that experiencing a high tide that covers your lawn and runs into your well makes a lasting impression on you that you don’t forget easily then I am wasting my time talking to you.

    The fact is it happened then and it doesn’t happen now.

    If you bother to check with other people who have lived in similar places, and there are many, you will get similar stories but who knows? you may get someone to support your story.

    Do you have anything to support your story or are you just full of bluster like most of the Doltoids here?

  6. #6 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Wow doesn’t even know what a salt marsh is or looks like.”

    Another lie from you.

    I am not surprised. Truth is hardly your friend.

  7. #7 spangled drongo
    December 18, 2012

    Paul S, there are thousands of PSMSL tide gauges and 91 “carefully selected” over a short 15 years no doubt can be reconciled.

  8. #8 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    glittery dipshit, if you don’t understand that your recollection means FUCK ALL globally or on a trend, then there is nothing at all to your posturings. You are inherently incompetent to make claims of global values or trends.

  9. #9 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “there are thousands of PSMSL tide gauges”

    So go look at the data. Stop pretending all those thousand exist in your back garden.

  10. #10 GWB's Nemesis
    December 18, 2012

    SD – your ignorance is remarkable. In a partially enclosed body of water, changes to the coastline, barriers, water depth, etc make a huge difference to the response to tides. Google Earth has two images less than a decade apart, and even on that timescale big differences are evident. Even Wikipedia says “The Middle Banks area close to Moreton Island has been used in the past as a source of sand for large projects such as the nearby Brisbane Airport and port facilities. Past dredging has removed 18 Mn3 and the removal of another 40 Mn3 is planned.[26] Future sand extraction is expected to aid a major shipping channel straightening project.” These activities, and others, will have changed the tidal response of the area, rendering your observations redundant in terms of wider processes. It is a bit sad you don’t see this.

    And yes, coasts are exposed to the wind, and that changes the dynamics of the tide big time. This is accentuated when the gauge is located in a narrowing body of water, as your location is. If the wind is from the north a very large body of water will be driven into the funnel, which will greatly increase the tide.

    So, to understand your “observations” you need to understand the dynamics of the coastal system, changes to river inflows, the effects of urbanisation, dredging, etc , etc, and the dynamics of the wind. This is all very interesting, but it means that you cannot use your observations in any way to extrapolate what is happening with sea level.

  11. #11 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “So, to understand your “observations” ”

    However, understanding his observations would be devastating to his case!

  12. #12 Paul S
    December 18, 2012

    Paul S, there are thousands of PSMSL tide gauges and 91 “carefully selected” over a short 15 years no doubt can be reconciled.

    The paper describes the selection process – they start with a database from well-monitored tide gauge stations (GLOSS), then remove records without near-complete (<80%) temporal coverage over the 15 year period when satellite data was available. That removed about half the database. They then used an independent check of record quality to remove a few dozen records which may have been corrupted by seismic events, subsidence or other such influences. The 'careful' selection is therefore independent of any subsequent match to satellite data. More information is available on this page. The resulting set shouldn’t automatically be taken as a perfect global sampling (though the paper describes tests which indicate it is reasonably representative), but that’s why the spatial test is compelling evidence. The chances that this reasonably large and spatially-diverse set of tide gauges would randomly agree with satellite data on regional sea level trends to such a high degree are vanishingly small.

    Actually, shorter periods represent a much harder test of regional trend agreement, as you might appreciate if you studied the trend map. Regional 15-year trends can vary from about 10mm/yr to -10mm//yr just by travelling a couple of thousand kilometres.

  13. #13 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Glittery bollocks would appear to be one of those deniers who proclaimed that AGW was a scam because the UHI hadn’t been corrected for by removing this “bad” data, then asserted that AGW was a scam because they threw out data from, for example, badly sited stations.

  14. #14 Neil White
    December 18, 2012

    Spangled Drongo

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

    You have absolutely no idea of what I was talking about, do you? Perhaps (just once) you could try to inform yourself before shooting your mouth off. I even directed you to some references.

  15. #15 Lionel A
    December 18, 2012

    It just so happens that another <Horseshit Power sea level story breaks elsewhere.

  16. #16 spangled drongo
    December 18, 2012

    Well, well Lionel, here’s your big challenge to open your own mind instead of genuflecting to Grant’s.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/17/sea-level-rise-data-based-on-shoddy-science/

    You see, I am only trying to tell you Doltards the good news that you are actually only waving, not drowning.

    But you don’t wish to know that.

    How does your serenety prayer go again:

    God grant me the BIAS to ignore the facts I hate, the BLINDNESS to embrace the ones I love and the BAD MANNERS to abuse those who wish to show me the difference.

    Merry Christmas

  17. #17 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    How do you know grant is correct?

    Are you taking his statements on faith? Blind faith?

    And tell us how 150 tons of people in Atlantic City can cause a depression in the ocean levels in Galvaston?

  18. #18 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    Indeed, if 150 tons of people could manage to depress the entire continent of the USA, how much bigger would the passage of one of these:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II

    Through a quiet village in France have wrecked the seashore of the entire eurasian continent!!!

  19. #19 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    (grand isn’t correct…)

  20. #20 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    (grant…)

  21. #21 chek
    December 18, 2012

    “Willie Soon is an independent scientist. Nils-Axel Morner is a sea level expert at Stockholm University”.

    Well that’s two lies right there. Morner retired from Stockholm seven years ago and has pursued a career as a batshit crank since, and Willie Soon is as independent as fossil fuel fronts the American Petroleum Institute and anti-science crank-tanks the George C Marshall Institute allow him to be. Which is not at all.

  22. #22 chameleon
    December 18, 2012

    Ha ha,
    you people are so funny.
    Most of the time you appear to be furiously agreeing with each other.
    The point of disagreement has sweet FA to do with ‘science’.
    Everyone agrees that SL is in constant flux, in fact the only constant re SL is that it changes.
    Throughout millenium it has gone up and down.
    The ’causes’ are what you’re really disagreeing about.
    Trying to pretend that the IPCC got it right either predictive or postdictive is looking sillier year by year.
    Modelling is a very useful tool but it is not a political crystal ball.
    It is becoming increasingly evident that ‘real time’ data does not support the hypothesis that ACO2 is a powerful agent in climate change and/or SL variation.
    The ‘real environment’ is not particularly interested in conforming to the models.
    There are obviously ‘other’ variables in the mix that are swamping out the hypothesised ‘human signal’.
    We could all do more harm than good if we attempt to interfere in something we DO NOT properly understand.
    By all means keep updating the data, but please stop screeching unsupported alarmism.
    The latest evidence is NOT alarming, in fact it appears that the hypothesised SLR trend was way too overstated.
    That may/may not change. Who knows?

  23. #23 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Everyone agrees that SL is in constant flux, in fact the only constant re SL is that it changes.”

    A completely empty statement with nothing, especially nothing of science, in it.

    You see, physics and science would posit that if something changes, SOMETHING MADE IT CHANGE.

    A scientist would investigate what made it change and how it changes.

    A denier or other form of brainless moron would merely discard it all, throw their metaphorical hands in the air and go back to shooting empty beer cans.

    It is ironic that your claim “The point of disagreement has sweet FA to do with ‘science’.” was followed by something that had Fuck All to do with science.

    But maybe you don’t mean science when you put scare quotes around it.

    Maybe ‘science’ is that retard version that deniers, YECs and other woomancer nutcases use.

    In which case, having nothing to do with ‘science’ is a good thing.

  24. #24 Wow
    December 18, 2012

    “Modelling is a very useful tool but it is not a political crystal ball.”

    Good job the models used aren’t being designed to be a political crystal ball, then, isn’t it?

    “It is becoming increasingly evident that ‘real time’ data does not support the hypothesis that ACO2 is a powerful agent in climate change”

    It is becoming increasingly evident that you have no clue what the science is. The data is precluding the lower bound of CO2 sensitivity more and more each day.

    ” and/or SL variation”

    Who cares about its variation, we’re looking at the TREND.

    And though you’re right, the models have been wrong, they’ve been

    a) better than the denialist “models”
    b) been UNDERESTIMATING the danger.

    The absolute opposite of your claim.

    “There are obviously ‘other’ variables in the mix that are swamping out the hypothesised ‘human signal’.”

    So you’ll be able to point out the “obvious” evidence for this, right?

    It had better not be the “No statistical increase in 16 years” because that is already included in the models used in the UKMO for example.

    “The latest evidence is NOT alarming, in fact it appears that the hypothesised SLR trend was way too overstated.”

    What is alarming is that someone as ignorant as you can come out and claim this.

    Mercury in the water? Fracking fluid?

  25. #25 chameleon
    December 19, 2012

    Good job of missing the point Wow.
    It is the actual causes, or in your words, what made it change, that is the point of debate.
    The ACO2 signal Wow, the ACO2 signal, the ACO2 signal Wow.
    Do you understand?
    NOBODY BUT NOBODY is claiming that it doesn’t change.
    Those IPCC models APPEAR to have grossly overstated the case for ACO2.
    BUT Wow, unlike you, I don’t need to cast aspersions on your character to make my point.
    Your attempt to shoot the messenger says more about you than me.
    You MAY yet prove to be correct.
    At the moment the passage of time and real time data is not supporting you.
    I don’t think you or anyone else can claim anything about SL and/or the climate/weather in relation to ACO2 with sufficient certainty.

  26. #26 David B. Benson
    December 19, 2012

    Wow — I stated in local equilibrium with the forces and according to the Euler equations. That does not mean ‘at rest’.

  27. #27 David B. Benson
    December 19, 2012

    chameleon — The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is that, indeed, anthropogenic CO2 is the major causative factor in the global temperature since before 1880 CE. Of course, when it warms icy places above freezing the ice melts helping to raise sea levels.

    But also all the groundwater pumping helps as well, debited by the artificial lakes behind anthropogenic dams.

  28. #28 Vince Whirlwind
    December 19, 2012

    Nice one, chameleon,
    “Your attempt to shoot the messenger says more about you than me.”

    What is it with denialists and projection?

    Clustering, I guess. Mental health professionals know all about it.

  29. #29 chameleon
    December 19, 2012

    I haven’t seen that evidence David,
    I have only seen rapidly failing computer generated predictive models.
    I am not claiming you are wrong.
    I have not seen real time data that proves the IPCC models and furthed modelling that uses the IPCC data are correct.
    The emergjng evidence is falling below the predicted ranges.
    If there is a correlation with ACO2 it does not appear to be as alarming or as powerful as originally hypothesised.
    But, hey, if you have evidence that proves those models are sound and worthwhile as predictive tools, I am open to the possibility.

  30. #30 Vince Whirlwind
    December 19, 2012

    What’s an “IPCC model”, BTW?

    Are you under the misapprehension that the IPCC is a research organisation or something?

    What happened to all the denialist models that predicted 2012 would be the coldest year since 1951?
    Those models were completely, utterly, and hopelessly wrong.

  31. #31 chameleon
    December 19, 2012

    Nice shot VW.
    Reminds me of something to do with pots and kettles.
    Who said I was a ‘denialist’?
    What are you claiming I have clustered or projected in particular?
    Indeed, what are you claiming that I have denied?
    You seem to be raising an argument with yourself?
    I merely questioned the veracity of the modelling.
    I wasn’t attempting to claim that ANYBODY was deficient in mental capacity or anything personal.
    Why do you think it’s necessary to do so?

  32. #32 Chris O'Neill
    December 19, 2012

    chameleon:

    Who said I was a ‘denialist’?

    Are you denying there has been warming in the last 16 years or not?

  33. #33 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    “Who said I was a ‘denialist’?”

    Me.

    Are you from the same “school” as Joan? Are you ACTUALLY Joan?

    “What are you claiming I have clustered or projected in particular?”

    You have projected YOUR misunderstanding of both the data and the models onto reality where it doesn’t objectively fit.

    “Indeed, what are you claiming that I have denied?”

    All the data.

    “You seem to be raising an argument with yourself?”

    This is not a question?

    “I merely questioned the veracity of the modelling.”

    And you were merely making shit up.

    “I wasn’t attempting to claim that ANYBODY was deficient in mental capacity or anything personal.”

    Except all the scientists of the world apart from (possibly) a few small percent.

    “Why do you think it’s necessary to do so?”

    It isn’t. We are pointing out you are doing so.

  34. #34 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    “Wow — I stated in local equilibrium with the forces and according to the Euler equations. That does not mean ‘at rest’.”

    Fair enough, I didn’t realise you were an idiotic moron.

    Feel free to post more bollocks if you wish.

  35. #35 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    “It is the actual causes, or in your words, what made it change, that is the point of debate.”

    Then you have to SAY what it is making it change.

    You didn’t.

    Well done for missing the point whilst complaining about it being missed.

    “The ACO2 signal Wow, the ACO2 signal, the ACO2 signal Wow.
    Do you understand?”

    I understand the CO2 signal. I assume A you’re adding to be “Anthropogenically sourced. But what that sentence there means is anybody’s guess: it contains no actual information as a sentence.

    “NOBODY BUT NOBODY is claiming that it doesn’t change.”

    So why are you bringing up nobody claiming it? If nobody is claiming that, nobody is claiming the Great Green Arkleseizure is making it wobble like lime jelly.

    “Those IPCC models APPEAR to have grossly overstated the case for ACO2.”

    Only if you’re a moron who hasn’t looke at either the data or the model results.

    To anyone who has, the climate models (the IPCC doesn’t have any models, they collate and analyse the models of others) have UNDERESTIMATED the effects of CO2.

    “BUT Wow, unlike you, I don’t need to cast aspersions on your character to make my point.”

    Actually, you do. You claim all the IPCC authors are idiots and/or liars.

    And since your point is, in base fact, wrong, what the hell does not assasinating character have to do with making it true???

    For someone who whines and whinges about making up points nobody said, you certainly love the irrelevant tangent!

    “Your attempt to shoot the messenger says more about you than me.”

    No, if I were to shoot you, you’d notice.

    However, since the messenger is full of crap, apparently you think that pointing this out is somehow proof that it isn’t crap.

    How does that work exactly?

    “You MAY yet prove to be correct.”

    No, it’s currently proving me correct. Funny thing, reality.

    “At the moment the passage of time and real time data is not supporting you.”

    No, the passage of time and real data is supporting me.

    “I don’t think you or anyone else can claim anything about SL and/or the climate/weather in relation to ACO2 with sufficient certainty.”

    No, we can claim with nearly 100% certainty that we’re looking at 3.2C per doubling of CO2 and our production of CO2 will lead us to 2C of warming well before 2100.

  36. #36 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    “I haven’t seen that evidence David,”

    As Nelson said: I see no ships!

    “I have only seen rapidly failing computer generated predictive models.”

    Yah, the deniers models and predictions have been bollocks. You’ve not looked at the actual research.

    “I am not claiming you are wrong.”

    Yes you are.

    “I have not seen real time data that proves the IPCC models and furthed modelling that uses the IPCC data are correct.”

    You have not looked.

    Google GISS global temperature.

    “The emergjng evidence is falling below the predicted ranges.”

    No, we have a quiet period of the sun (which would indicate a cooling of 0.2C approximately, but still the trend is warming because CO2 is increasing).

    You DO know that the climate is changed by more than just CO2 and that, unlike denier misrepresentations, the climate models include these, right?

    For someone who claimed “The climate obviously depends on other things” you don’t seem to know that the models include other things.

    “If there is a correlation with ACO2 it does not appear to be as alarming or as powerful as originally hypothesised.”

    No, it’s solidly within the IPCC range 2-4.5C per doubling with a mean of 3C per doubling. Indeed it is looking like 3.2C per doubling.

    “But, hey, if you have evidence that proves those models are sound and worthwhile as predictive tools, I am open to the possibility.”

    Yeah, I doubt it.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

  37. #37 Chris O'Neill
    December 19, 2012

    chameleon:

    It is becoming increasingly evident that ‘real time’ data does not support the hypothesis that ACO2 is a powerful agent in climate change

    So you are in denial of the data shown in this graph.

  38. #38 Skeptic
    December 19, 2012

    If spangled dumbo believes Nils-Axel “tilt-the-graph” Morner, he’ll believe anything.

  39. #39 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    I don’t think he’s actually believed. He’s just repeated.

  40. #40 Harry
    December 19, 2012

    The beauty of being a skeptic is that you can believe many mutually contradictory lines of evidence that other people say. The beauty of being Andrew Bolt is that you can tell them to everyone else.

  41. #41 Skeptic
    December 19, 2012

    If spangled dumbo believes Nils-Axel “tilt-the-graph” Morner

    I guess this is to be expected since dumbo models himself on Morner:

    In other words, he claims that _all_ of the known data is incorrect, that his tiny subset of uncorrected data is in fact the best measure.

    The similarity is uncanny.

  42. #42 Lionel A
    December 19, 2012

    Meanwhile across the Pacific, around cape Horn and up a bit there are people wishing they could have the experience mythologised by drongo drops for Northeastern U.S. Coast Is ‘Hotspot’ for Sea-Level Rise.

    Of course if drongo drops doesn’t like this coming from a ‘popular’ science site (which would be ironic considering his offerings) then he can always listen to the horse’s mouth Sea Level Rise Accelerating in U.S. Atlantic Coast.

  43. #43 Lionel A
    December 19, 2012

    Now this one, going in circles as it were, was almost too silly to be worth a reply:

    Well, well Lionel, here’s your big challenge to open your own mind instead of genuflecting to Grant’s.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/17/sea-level-rise-data-based-on-shoddy-science/

    ,

    but what the heck.

    Don’t you think that readers of Tamino’s post would have quickly become aware of the WashTimes Soon-Morner Magic Roundabout so why the need to link to it? It is way past your bed time Zebedee .

  44. #44 Lionel A
    December 19, 2012

    And, drongo drops, if you have not by now appreciated the true value of Morner’s work then revisit Horseshit Power and scroll down to the post by Bill Ruddiman, read and learn and also check out Ruddiman’s publishing record with some fine mainstream books too which even you could track down and read.

    Follow your eyes down to the next post by John Mashey, and this is one for the whole ‘Troll Collective’ (or ‘Wendy Club’) and note the links to fossil fuel funded think tanks.

    Fossil fuel companies (coal, oil, gas) should be fined for aiding and abetting faux-science and not allowed tax payer funded tax breaks or subsidies. How can that be a level playing field viz a viz alternative energy sources?

  45. #45 ianam
    December 19, 2012

    Whoa, there are still people stupid enough to deny AGW?

  46. #46 chameleon
    December 19, 2012

    Hmmm,
    So it’s all about screeching and name calling here?
    Not interested in talking about reality and what we could or should do to protect coastal infrastructure?
    I visited this site on a recommendation and I am stunned at the outright beligerence.
    Most of you are just interested in arguing, most of the time with yourselves.
    I have not denied anything, I have merely questioned the veracity of the modelling that uses ACO2 as a powerful driver of climate.
    At present, it APPEARS that something else is driving change and that ACO2 is sitting way down the back of the bus.
    Anyway, unless recommended to do so, I won’t be visiting again as I find the supercilious attitude here rather distasteful.
    It is no surprise that this site cannot foster a robust discussion when the majority of commenters here are only interested in being rude to anyone who questions the political ‘alarmism’.
    ‘Shooting the messenger’ is an age old and very boring political technique.
    Enjoy the shooting folks.
    It is not achieving anything worthwhile.

  47. #47 chek
    December 19, 2012

    You should be made aware that ‘screeching’ is a sound heard within the head, and text doesn’t do that.

    You therefore might like to consider:
    a) urgently having a psych evauation for the sake of your mental health
    or
    b) fucking off with your kindergarten-level psy-ops.

  48. #48 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    “So it’s all about screeching and name calling here?”

    Uh, yeah, you keep on imagining what you think ought to happen.

    We’ll keep in reality.

    It’s not as pleasant but it’s a whole lot more reliable.

    “Not interested in talking about reality and what we could or should do to protect coastal infrastructure?”

    According to you, there’s nothing to worry about!

    And when did YOU start talking about reality? Or protecting coastal infrastructure? Are you being ALARMIST?!?!?!

    “I have not denied anything”

    Yes you did, you denied the evidence.

    “I have merely questioned the veracity of the modelling…”

    Did you actually think to check what the models were first?

    Or how well they stood up?

    No.

    You came over here to screech and complain about how it’s all a scam.

    And now you’ve had reality shoved up your jacksie, you’re whining about that.

    Diddums.

    “At present, it APPEARS that something else is driving change and that ACO2 is sitting way down the back of the bus.”

    Denying the evidence again.

    No, we’ve currently put enough in to make the temperatures about .6C warmer when it all settles down. And we’re putting more in while you deny the evidence (then whine about how you deny nothing: except all the stuff you deny is real).

    “Anyway, unless recommended to do so, I won’t be visiting again”

    You mean unless you’re told by someone to spout more gibberish here, you’ll fuck off? Excellent.

    Bye.

  49. #49 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    Well, wasn’t he weird.

    And it looks like he wasn’t all that open to being shown evidence he was wrong.

    Got all bent out of shape about it, rather.

  50. #50 chameleon
    December 19, 2012

    Hmmm?
    I rest my case Wow & Chek.
    Is it necessary to be so rude to a new commenter?
    What are you hoping to achieve?
    You truly are very amusing and as a little bit of parting advice, your behaviour has done nothing to endear a ‘fence sitter’ like me to your case.
    I find your behaviour just as distasteful as those ‘deniers’ you keep managing to refer to in every single post.
    You truly are as bad as each other.
    For you, like them, it APPEARS to me that it simply about arguing semantics and
    arguing politics. Nothing more.
    It has been an enlightening 24 hours.
    Enjoy.

  51. #51 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    “Is it necessary to be so rude to a new commenter?”

    No, but is it necessary to be rude as a new commenter?

    And is it unnecessary to be rude to one? Where did you gain a right not to be ridiculed for being ridiculous?

    “You truly are as bad as each other.”

    Excellent, FALSE EQUIVALENCE. See:

    http://xkcd.com/774/

    But you’re actually “one of them”. You aren’t a fence sitter. You VERY CLEARLY claimed ABSOLUTELY that the evidence showed AGW was false.

    That isn’t a fence in the middle.

    Why, though did you try to pretend it was?

  52. #52 Wow
    December 19, 2012

    It didn’t take him long to be told to come back, did it?

  53. #53 chek
    December 19, 2012

    “Those IPCC models APPEAR to have grossly overstated the case for ACO2. At the moment the passage of time and real time data is not supporting you.
    I don’t think you or anyone else can claim anything about SL and/or the climate/weather in relation to ACO2 with sufficient certainty”.

    Strangely, in the real world the IPCC is considered way too conservative in its projections, so which models (the IPCC has none – that’s not what they do) – exactly – are you accusing of overstating the case?

    Which data are not supporting ‘us’ over ‘the passage of time’?

    How do you calculate certainty, in order to dismiss it within a sentence?

  54. #54 Ian Forrester
    December 19, 2012

    Do sock-puppets change colour and names as easily and often as a chameleon?

    “Is it necessary to be so rude to a new commenter?”

    I doubt very much that you are a “new commenter”. What other names have you been using? No wonder you got the treatment that you deserved.

  55. #55 Vince Whirlwind
    December 20, 2012

    Skeptic pointed out the credibility problem associated with Spangled Drongo’s belief in Morner.

    Now is a good time to refresh your memory of just how looney Morner is:
    http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/recognition/2203.html
    *Especially* have a look at p.19.

  56. #56 Vince Whirlwind
    December 20, 2012

    Oops, cut and paste fail,
    *this* is Morner’s looney paper:
    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf

  57. #57 MikeH
    December 20, 2012

    Vince.
    21stcenturysciencetech is the web site of the LaRouchies. Anything published there is going to batshit crazy.

  58. #58 John
    December 20, 2012

    I’m impressed Morner stopped dowsing long enough to write that article.

  59. #59 Chris O'Neill
    December 20, 2012

    Looking through this list of troll types, I’d say chameleon is a crybaby troll and a self-feeding troll.

  60. #60 Karen
    December 20, 2012

    New paper finds sea levels were significantly higher during past interglacials

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589412000555

  61. #61 chek
    December 20, 2012

    So Karen, how were previous global human civilisations affected during those previous interglacials?

    ** crickets **

  62. #62 Whacked out
    December 20, 2012

    Hey Tim

    How’s the job hunt going

  63. #63 Wow
    December 20, 2012

    Warmer climates mean that sea levels rise shocker from Karen…

  64. #64 Stu
    December 20, 2012

    Is it necessary to be so rude to a new commenter?

    Tone troll. Boring.

  65. #65 Neil White
    December 20, 2012

    Karen

    Fisrtly, this is not news – there have been papers about this before. Sea level was metres higher during the last interglacial than they are now. The temperature then was what we are heading towards now.

    It’s a worry, isn’t it!

    But perhaps that was the point you were making?

  66. #66 Paul S
    December 20, 2012

    Neil,

    I don’t suppose you’d be able to provide a copy of the new Gregory et al. paper you co-authored? Is it embargoed at the moment?

  67. #67 Bolt for PM
    December 20, 2012

    SLR is accelerating? OK. Just to clarify though, what real world effects have we seen worldwide in say the past 80 years?

    After all, it is real world effects that matter, not statistical representations. Spangled’s observations are fair enough because regardless of the numbers, it is what happens on the ground that you are all concerned about isn’t it?

    From the graphs above, we see about 18 cm of rise since 1930, 80 years ago. An average person’s lifetime. What would the average person have seen along Australia’s east coast? How about south coast?

    This is a serious question. I haven’t noticed anything beyond the normal effects of erosion at say Sydney, Adelaide, Queensland beaches etc. My personal obs over 50 years are that Spangled is right.

    So somewhere in the world we must be seeing the effects of sea level rise. Note: Sea Level Rise. Not land subsidence. Does anyone have some direct experience? I don’t mean some report or some paper or whatever. I mean real, on the ground experience. Because it is real on the ground experience that will be the problem, not the lines on a graph.

    Spangled is the only person here willing to offer some real life observation, and you are all over him for it. OK. But where’s *your* real world obs to offer into the discussion?

  68. #68 Stu
    December 20, 2012

    Just for fun:

    GAINESVILLE, Fla. — A new study by a University of Florida researcher finds that sea level peaked between 18 and 30 feet above current sea level during the last interglacial period approximately 125,000 years ago.

    30 feet? No problem, right?

  69. #69 Neil White
    December 20, 2012

    Paul S

    This paper has now been accepted and is available from the early access part of the Journal of Climate web site (in http://www.ametsoc.org). This is the ‘uncorrected proof’ version. We haven’t had the proofs yet.

    If that doesn’t do you any good, email me directly and I will send it to you. I think you know where to find my email address. Be warned that I’m on leave at the moment and response could be slow.

  70. #70 ianam
    December 21, 2012

    Is it necessary to be so rude to a new commenter?

    Here is your first sentence:

    “Ha ha,
    you people are so funny.”

    It’s not necessary to be rude to assholes like you, but it’s hardly unexpected.

  71. #71 ianam
    December 21, 2012

    a ‘fence sitter’ like me

    You aren’t a fence sitter (which itself is an unsupportable position), you’re a lying sack of denialist crap. “fence sitters” do not make positive but utterly false claims like

    It is becoming increasingly evident that ‘real time’ data does not support the hypothesis that ACO2 is a powerful agent in climate change and/or SL variation.

    and


    There are obviously ‘other’ variables in the mix that are swamping out the hypothesised ‘human signal’.

    That’s full-bore denialism. You came here with your mind already made up, to ridicule people here. You’re an arrogant, stupid putz who lacks the most basic equipment for intellectual understanding of science.

    your behaviour has done nothing to endear a ‘fence sitter’ like me to your case.

    So the likelihood that AGW is valid, or your willingness to accept that, hinges on whether some of the people who accept it were rude to you? Do you realize how incredibly stupid and intellectually immature that makes you look?

    For you, like them, it APPEARS to me that it simply about arguing semantics and
    arguing politics.

    So what? You are an ignorant imbecile and how things appear to you is irrelevant.

  72. #72 chameleon
    December 21, 2012

    Am sitting killing time at the hairdressers as I am actually a ‘she’ not a ‘he’ and decided to revisit (probably against my better judgement).
    The bad guess about gender was not the only one folks.
    I am splitting my sides laughing.
    I was seriously a first time visitor here and not a regular
    anyone anywhere on blogs.
    I cannot believe how quick you have been to draw negative conclusions and make ‘assumptions’.
    Seriously you have done nothing to endear me to your case.
    I commented that I thought your behaviour was amusing because at the time (to a newcomer) you looked to be ‘furiously agreeing’ with each other. The comments were also mostly personal with sweet FA to do with science.
    You had the opportunity to change that first impression.
    I was told this was a good site to visit.

  73. #73 Ian Forrester
    December 21, 2012

    chameleon is weeping crocodile tears:

    I was told this was a good site to visit.

    It is a good place to visit if you are honest, intelligent sand have a basic understanding of science and how it works. it is not a nice place for dishonest AGW deniers who spew their lies, deceit, misinterpretations and obfuscation. It is very doubtful that you are a first time visitor. I do not believe a word you say about yourself.

    falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

  74. #74 chameleon
    December 21, 2012

    Now my hairdresser is laughing after the initial shock at the rude behaviour.
    Mr Forrester, I was interested in looking at evidence, not your ability to believe a or disbelieve.
    You are free to believe anything you want.
    I have now discovered that this site was recommended to me as a place to view poor behaviour.
    I had to check as I thought the person who recommended I visited this site was ‘having a lend’.

  75. #75 Lotharsson
    December 21, 2012

    Ah, yes, the classic “citing my hairdresser” gambit.

    Has it ever garnered any credibility in a discussion about science, or is it merely employed in an attempt to distract readers from the incorrectness and uninformedness – never mind the unsupportedness – of your claims about climate science?

    Speaking of which, how about you attempt to support those claims? Your initial foray here provides no actual sign of your claim to be “interested in looking at evidence” – just the opposite, in fact – and your subsequent efforts don’t do much for your claim either.

  76. #76 ianam
    December 21, 2012

    probably against my better judgement

    You have no “better” judgment. Your latter comments are even more stupid than your comments about AGW. Your claims about this site being “recommended” to you are incoherent, but even the most charitable interpretation makes you out to be an imbecile.

    And no one “guessed” your gender, and a presumption by one or two people that you’re a “he” is not a “bad guess” — you’re too stupid to understand even that concept.

  77. #77 Chris O'Neill
    December 21, 2012

    How many people discuss climate science with their hairdresser? Self-feeding trolls do, apparently.

  78. #78 Paul S
    December 21, 2012

    Thanks Neil, email posted.

  79. #79 David B. Benson
    December 22, 2012

    chameleon — The evidence was already so conclusive by 1979 that the Charney committee could write a book length report about it.

    Charney et al. 1979 NRC/NAS report:
    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12181&page=R1

    The route to that report (and much else besides) is in the (constantly updated) book by ‘historian of science’, physicist Spencer Weart:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

    I started with W.F. (Bill) Ruddiman’s “Earth’s Climate: Past and Future” which I recommend as an excellent starter into actual climatology.

  80. #80 David B. Benson
    December 22, 2012

    Wow — What I posted is actually the way Euler thought about fluid dynamics. I suggest you try to emulate it rather than just tossing around cheap insults (which were not even creatively done).

  81. #81 Bernard J.
    December 22, 2012

    Relative newcomers to Deltoid may not be aware that Spangled Drongo has a long history of blowing this particular bugle (-> bungle), which is why I invoked his name on this thread back on 13 December. I’ve been largely away from the keyboard since, and I haven’t caught up with this thread ’til now…

    For those interested in reading the long and sound thrashing that was delivered to Drongo previously, these two threads are a good start:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/19/the-australians-war-on-science-47/

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/06/andrew-bolt-in-one-graph/

    It’s worth reading the back story just for the context and the astonishing idiocy that some folk demonstrate (not Bernard to be sure, to paraphrase Eli…).

    There is at least one other thread somewhere* on Deltoid where Drongo revealed that his sea wall is on Chevron Island in the Nerang River behind the Gold Coast, a number of kilometers from the river’s mouth! He even posted a link to a photo of it, and even before he revealed the location I’d narrowed the location down using Google Earth – and the happy coincidence that several decades ago I stayed at the Condor opposite Chevron, and spent a bit of time on the water around the island.

    Drongo is pretending that he knows more than the professional oceanographers that study sea level rise, but all he has is a lot of time boating on a river and being completely ignorant of the complexities that determine both local and global sea leve rise relative to many different reference points.

    He the emperor of a tinny, sodden with XXXX, wearing no clothes and glowing beet red with extremely servere sunburn.

    [*If someone can find that thread I'd be most interested. The search engine here these days sucks...]

  82. #82 Lionel A
    December 22, 2012

    David B. Benson

    I started with W.F. (Bill) Ruddiman’s “Earth’s Climate: Past and Future” which I recommend as an excellent starter into actual climatology.

    Indeed, I am studying a copy of that at the moment and if the price is a deterrent for SD (which I doubt, for an ingrained refusal to adopt evidence to his contrary will exert a higher priority).

    If the price does put SD off then the same author’s ‘Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate‘ will provide many pointers and also a primer into the longer influence of humans on climate.

    Also a good book on oceanography such as ‘Oceanography (ISE): An Invitation to Marine Science‘ by Tom Garrison will provide much scientific background especially the sections on tides and waves. There is much other essential material for those unfamiliar with the Earth’s systems.

  83. #83 chameleon
    December 23, 2012

    Thank you David B Benson,
    So there are people who comment here who can talk about the actual evidence and offer suggestions (scientific & historical) without feeling the need to throw cheap and unsubstantiated personal insults?
    For all of you, I actually do find the theory of AGW compelling but the alarming claims about SLR in relation to AGW & ACO2 are only appearing in the stat modelling not in reality.
    I tend to agree with Bolt for PM above that it is real world effects that matter and what we should be focusing our time and energy on.
    Despite the many unfounded accusations otherwise I am not in denial that human activity impacts environment. Of course it does.
    Sometimes those imacts are negative and sometimes they are positive.
    I do question calling the discipline of stat modelling ‘science’ however.
    There are models that use scientific data and even Tim at this post points out that they are rather easily changed by simply altering start/stop datum points.
    He chose to call that unscrupulous, but I don’t think it is unscrupulous if the methodology and the datum points are clearly outlined.
    Stat modelling by its very nature has start/end points and can only really take ‘snapshots in time’. In that particular respect, they are all therefore guilty of ‘cherry picking’.
    It is all very interesting, very high tech etcetera, but it is not necessarily the best way to represent something as variable as sea levels or the best tool to dictate far reaching social policy.
    Many other professions and small businesses use stat modelling for a variety of purposes and they are all aware of their failings as well as their useful applications.
    To me, on my first visit here, I found it amusing that the argument seemed to be about the stat models, not the actual science or indeed what is happening in the real world to human coastal infrastructure.
    People here are very quick to draw unkind and rude conclusions about others. It really doesn’t do anything to endear a newcomer to your case.
    Anyone who has spent any amount of time living on the coast is aware that it is always vulnerable to erosion and subsidence. Some places suffer worse than others due to their geography/geology/prevailing weather patterns ectera.
    I tried to post a few links here to demonstrate the point about stat projections, but they would not paste for me.
    I may try later but will probably not bother if all i have achieved by posting again is just more unfounded & rude abuse.

  84. #84 Chris O'Neill
    December 23, 2012
  85. #85 David B. Benson
    December 23, 2012

    chameleon — First and foremost, the big AOGCMs are not statistical models but rather based on the known physics. Spencer Weart’s book provides a good historical summary of climate modeling.

    Second, SLR is well understood due to the LCM to Holocene transition during which sea level rose 120–130 meters in an flattened-S-shaped curve lasting about 5000 years.

    Third, SLR since 1880 is a global time series product based on known physics and actual data. Being a time series there are a variety of statistical methods which can be used to analyze it provided there is enough data (which there is). Given that the LGM to Holocene transition produced an S shaped curve for SLR it is physically reasonable to hypothesize much the same from the renewed melting of polar region ice. Indeed, the data shows the beginning of that S-shape (which will continue until the sea level has risen about 6–9 meters, at least).

  86. #86 Bolt for PM
    December 23, 2012

    I’ll have to find some time to read Bernard J’s links to previous Drongo thrashings so apologies for not having done my research.

    But my earlier point remains. I am happy to admit ignorance and to having no more than a layperson’s curiosity, so some eddykayshun might be useful, eh?

    The article we are commenting on seems to claim that SLR is still accelerating, yet no-one offers convincing evidence of this. The graphs shown certainly don’t demonstrate this. What they DO show to my unpracticed eye is a clearly steady overall trend since about 1930, and a relative deceleration since 2004.

    Above it is claimed that SD is completely ignorant of the complexities that determine both local and global sea level rise relative to many different reference points.”

    Perhaps he is. But I still would be interested to know what real world effects the past 100 years have had where SLR is concerned. What do you have to offer? I’ll even settle for actual papers if you have nothing personal to offer. SD has a legitimate point, or so it seems to me, one which agrees with my own observations over half a century. All the graphs in the world mean zip if nothing actually happens.

  87. #87 Lotharsson
    December 23, 2012

    Chameleon, people might spend more time helping you understand things, but you don’t seem to understand what you’re talking about and yet continue to claim that your understanding is superior. Perhaps that explains why you don’t particularly seem interested to learn, and you retreat to tone trolling “justified” by false claims of “unfounded” criticism – when the criticism appears to be well founded indeed, based on your performance to date.

    But on the off chance that you really want to improve your current understanding, lets start with:

    1. Anyone who uses an apparent neologism like “stat modeling” that implies some sort of non-physical model suggests that they don’t know how climate science works. (Feel free to elaborate on what you mean by “stat modeling” and justify that definition as an adequate description of climate models. You’ll probably need to explain how climate models work to do so.)

    2. Anyone who suggests that climate scientists – in contrast to “many other professions and small business” – AREN’T aware of and actively seeking to reduce any limitations in their scientific models – is either ignorant or lying, because the literature is full of them doing precisely that. Heck, some of them even take the time to write blog posts about it for laypeople.

    3. Anyone who suggests that because some people make claims whose apparent support from the evidence is “… rather easily changed by simply altering start/stop datum points”, that the conclusions of climate science are not robust to the selection of start/stop data points is either ignorant or lying. (I mean, you do realise that the concerns about SLR are not based on simply projecting statistical trends derived from past data into the future, right? And you do realise there’s a whole swathe of scientific literature assessing how well the models do by assessing them against reality on a whole range of measures, right?)

    4. Similarly, anyone who equates the kind of “modeling” done in climate science with (by implication) the kinds of “stat modeling” or “stat projections” you claim many other professions and small businesses engage in doesn’t understand why one class of model based on physics might be more reliable in the physical world than the other is in (say) the financial world.

    5. And while we’re at it anyone arguing that climate models are not scientific doesn’t understand the terms they are using.

    Those erroneous assumptions invalidate practically all the sciency claims in your post, and you’re still making them despite people trying to educate you, AND apparently calling the criticism of your unsupported claims “unfounded”. Any wonder that they think you’re not actually here to learn, and aren’t even here to discuss science because you almost entirely misunderstand what it is and how it works?

    But while you’re here, and since you probably think everything I just wrote is wrong (or at best to be ignored as if it didn’t exist), perhaps you can share some of your superior knowledge with us. You say:

    I actually do find the theory of AGW compelling…

    And then go on to disclaim your statement by rejecting the fairly straightforward outcomes of that theory where it pertains to SLR.

    Perhaps you could explain how exactly your own mental model of how climate works is (a) at least as good an explanation for ALL the data as any of the traditional climate science understandings and models, and (b) leads one to conclude that SLR won’t be significant? No doubt you’ll have an explanation for the fairly simple and uncontested physics of warming water, ice melt in a body of water and salty vs fresh water which lead to the conclusion that a warming planet will experience sea level rise – and the deep historical data that leads to the same conclusion? Or do you have some hitherto unknown amazing physical effect that counteracts all of these simple and generally well-understood effects? And when can we expect to see this superior understanding published in a leading scientific journal?

    (I expect you’ll fall back to citing “uncertainty” as if that makes it alright. If you’re tempted by that argument go look at Arctic sea ice projections by the models and compare them to reality.)

    I mean, you say you came here to discuss the science and made a bunch of assertions, so you are ARE prepared to back up your “questioning” with something a little more than unsubstantiated claim, aren’t you?

    (And if you want to post links, go here and use the “Hyperlink” syntax – or failing that just paste the URL directly as text rather than trying to make a link.)

  88. #88 Lotharsson
    December 23, 2012

    Gack, formatting fail :-(

  89. #89 David B. Benson
    December 23, 2012

    Lotharsson — That was obvious so you didn’t need to be a self-nit-picker about it.

    :-)

  90. #90 David B. Benson
    December 23, 2012

    Bolt for PM — There are standard statistical tests which can be applied to the SLR data series to show that, indeed, in 1880+ SLR was about 1 mm/yr and by the 21st century SLR is now about 3 mm.yr.

    One needs to read an beginning text on the (statistical) analysis of time series.

  91. #91 Bolt for PM
    December 23, 2012

    David Benson I am sure that’s true. And I could probably do some digging on that claim to place it in context. But this blog post specifically refers to three graphs, for example “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).”

    When I look at that graph, I clearly see an acceleration from 1880 to 1930, after which the rise is quite steady. When I look closer using the second graph, I see a deceleration. And the third graph seems quite reasonable on the basis that IF deceleration set in after about 2002-ish, then indeed one can show a less steep trend curve.

    So, as a layperson, i can conclude that it is apparent that the more extreme predictions of SLR so far do not appear to be in evidence.

    I can then turn to locally observed physical properties of sea level, and note that little has changed in 50-100 years. Spangled Drongo makes a similar point.

    All you offer in return is dismissal because he doesn’t understand all sorts of esoterica. I’m saying, where’s the evidence that this sea level rise is actually doing something somewhere.

    And why do the three graphs prove that it is still accelerating when blind Freddie can see that is not so?

  92. #92 MikeH
    December 23, 2012

    “standard statistical tests” are apparently “esoterica”
    Bolt for PM prefers the “eyecrometer”

    Fortunately we all get to laugh.
    http://xkcd.com/1131/

  93. #93 Bolt for PM
    December 23, 2012

    Mike H, Top marks for missing the point.

    The lead in for this post is;
    “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.”

    Nowhere does it say “Take a course in statistical methods, get the complete datasets, run the appropriate evaluations, plot the results and interpret them”. No, it says eyeball these graphs and tell me you can’t see the SLR acceleration.

    I’m saying I can’t see it.

    And I’m asking for someone to point to an example of where this apparently mind-bogglingly scary SLR has actually been found to actually be visible.

    Crickets…

  94. #94 chameleon
    December 23, 2012

    I tend to agree with Bolt for PM.
    The graphs at this post neither prove or disprove the claims from some of the commenters.
    Tim did indeed point out that changing the datum start/stop points can change the results and/or the conclusions.
    As Bolt for PM asks:
    Where is the mind-bogglingly scary SLR actually visible?
    From 2002 it looks as if the trend is decelerating.
    And David and Lotharsson?
    Are you claiming that the big AOGCMs are not using stats?

  95. #95 spangled drongo
    December 23, 2012

    Bolt for PM, I have yet to find anyone here who has even bothered to take any SL measurements during their lifetimes to be aware of what is happening under their noses yet they are certain I am wrong.

    One would think that people like Bernard J, who spout great claims of CAGW and SLR, would have at least done the one thing that an individual can do to confirm their ideology.

    When all of my benchmarks over periods up to 70 years tie in with each other and also with local tide gauges I am pretty confident that there is not too much SLR for them to get hysterical about.

    It’s just a shame they have never tried to work it out for themselves.

  96. #96 Bolt for PM
    December 23, 2012

    Indeed Chameleon and SD. I am not for a moment pretending I can argue the science as such. But I can certainly do my own reading and draw a conclusion, or at least develop an opinion.

    In the case of this post, we are being told that SLR is indeed accelerating despite the sceptical claims to the contrary. But excuse me if perhaps I am a bit too dim, but that is NOT what those graphs tell me. Other commenters may be able to do some fancy footwork with the data, but when actual observation tends to back up the case for less than stellar SLR, I for one back the case for deceleration.

  97. #97 Lotharsson
    December 23, 2012

    Are you claiming that the big AOGCMs are not using stats?

    Sheesh, you’ll have to do better than that to deflect the question.

    Please describe what you mean by the unusual term “stat modelling”, and what climate models actually do, and how the two compare. For bonus points describe how the “stat models” from other endeavours you cited work, and compare and contrast with climate models.

    For extra bonus points define the difference between your earlier claim that climate models ARE “stat models”, and your current question about whether climate models USE statistics.

    Pretty sure you won’t go there. Just like you haven’t provided your own model that explains ALL the data better than mainstream climate science does, and yet leads you to conclude that SLR is not going to be a serious concern.

  98. #98 spangled drongo
    December 23, 2012

    Bennard J, please don’t expose your ignorance further by making out that you have any idea of my involvement with the waterfront and BTW that 49.9 year old Chevron Is benchmark is exactly ONE nm from the official mouth of the Nerang R, not “several kilometers”. The 40 year BMs are within a couple of hundred meters of the Southport Broadwater and the 66 and 70 year BMs are in exposed areas of Moreton bay.

    They generally agree and show between 100 and 200 mm fall in SL over those periods.

  99. #99 chek
    December 23, 2012

    Spanky, please don’t expose your ignorance and confuse simple provincial experience with the data.

    You may dispute the global data, but until you and your mates convincingly demonstrate it to be wrong, it stands.

    Got that? IT STANDS.
    (That’s why cranks hate numbers).
    Tales based on homely, prelapsian if undocumented childhood memories notwithstanding.

    If you (or your mates) really wanted to find out about real-life experience, there is one way to do it.
    Use the data.
    How?
    Ah, that’s the perennial problem with trying to enlighten the wilfully stupid. Where does it end?

  100. #100 chameleon
    December 23, 2012

    Lotharsson,
    I apologise if you don’t like my termonology.
    Would you like me to call them climate models?
    Whatever the terminology, they are generated using stats are they not?
    I wasn’t attempting to duck any questions.
    You were asking me to put up a defense over something I did not claim in the first place.
    To me, that looks like you are attempting to argue with yourself.
    Which I have noticed is a common practice here and which I find highly amusing.