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 Lionel A
    December 23, 2012

    Message for Spangled Drongo, BoltforPM, chameleon.

    The acceleration in the rise of sea level may have slowed (note that it is not the rise in sea level that has slowed), this is because of numerous factors already mentioned above such as dam builds and increased irrigation leading to a slow down in the flow out to oceans.

    However, and this is a big however, one outstanding factor is that because of rising air temperatures globally, admittedly with a few shifting cooler small areas, there is more water vapour being held above our heads.

    This has caused elevated levels of activity in the hydrological cycle with more monsoon like storms and over not normal expecting to witness such monsoon like activity.

    We, in Britain, at this time are only too painfully aware of this as increasing numbers are forced out of their flooded homes, transport systems wrecked and land across vast swathes saturated and under standing water.

    Seriously, you numpties nit-picking and raising straw men arguments, moving goal posts and playing at word games are beginning to seriously piss me off.

    Many here are going to have a wrecked holiday period, to add to those worse off in the NE US and many other spots around the world.

    The scientific basis has been itemised by Bernard J informs us that APGW is a reality and the chickens are now coming in to roost. And things are only going to get worse as the system tries to reach equilibrium but with that point moving ever further ahead as we continue to ramp up GHG emissions globally. This should not be very difficult to comprehend.

  2. #2 chameleon
    December 23, 2012

    Lionel A,
    Seriously?
    Isn’t what you’re complaining about just local weather?
    I’m sorry that the weather is not being kind to you over your holiday period but you’re not alone and we can’t control the weather no matter what the climate models say.
    Bad weather is just bad weather Lionel
    Where I am at the moment in Oz we are having the opposite bad weather. Very hot, very dry and incredibly windy. There are fire bans and strong wind warnings all over the media.
    The forecast says it might be better by Christmas day, but who knows?
    There really isn’t any point in getting so negative and upset about the weather.
    Just because some of us asked questions about the graphs at this post and commented on the style of commenting at this post does not mean that we are somehow responsible for your lousy weather in England at the moment (or for that matter the lousy weather here).
    You may feel better if you believe you can blame someone else, but other than that it doesn’t change the weather at all.
    Cheer up Lionel.
    Despite the crappy weather you can still have fun with your friends and family in the holiday period :-)
    Despite the horrid weather here, we’re still having fun.

  3. #3 spangled drongo
    December 23, 2012

    Chek thinks that remote sensors adjusted by stats and computers outweigh observed measurements and Lionel thinks that all the SLR is in the air and on the ground. Well, I suppose any port in a storm.

    It’s probably not quite a dumb as lernard bernard and others claiming that deepening harbour entrances lowers SLs.

  4. #4 Lotharsson
    December 23, 2012

    …they are generated using stats are they not?

    In what sense? Please elaborate and clarify your understanding of how they operate. “Generated using stats” isn’t a useful description.

    If you can’t explain how they work I’ll take it as an admission that you don’t actually know how they work – and you should take it as a suggestion to go find out how they work before you attempt to draw conclusions from incorrect assumptions.

    Once you get that far, try searching for the blog post from a modeller who explains how difficult it would be to wiggle the parameters to force the model to generate predictions that meet some arbitrary goal such as “CO2 causes lots of warming” without also screwing up all sorts of other metrics of model performance that modellers pay attention to.

    Or simply ponder this.

    If climate models are so easy to bias to a particular conclusion without giving the game away by screwing up other metrics, why hasn’t ANYONE come up with one that explains all the observations we have at least as well as the current lot do, but doesn’t imply serious concern about anthropogenic climate change?

    It’s not like it would take a lot of money – and fossil fuel companies are highly motivated in this area AND have received tens of billions of dollars in government subsidies – and generally spend way WAY more on marketing in a year than this kind of effort would take. Such an achievement would really strike a blow at the case for concern (well, at least at one part of the evidence. The rest doesn’t come from models so it would still be cause for concern). Since this is clearly something that would help their business, and since you think it’s eminently achievable, and since they have people at least as smart as you and I in their employment – and since any scientist involved would likely earn a Nobel Prize which is a huge motivation for them individually, then why hasn’t anyone done it?

  5. #5 Lotharsson
    December 24, 2012

    …we can’t control the weather no matter what the climate models say.

    Wow, you really don’t know what the climate models “say”, do you?!

  6. #6 chameleon
    December 24, 2012

    Lotharsson?
    Seriously?
    Did you miss the fact that Lionel A is blaming his crappy holiday weather on AGW?
    You have just said the same thing I said, albiet in a different tone and from a different perspective.
    Lionel A is the one who doesn’t seem to understand how they work. I am fully aware that they are about global climate change as opposed to crappy local weather events.

  7. #7 Bolt for PM
    December 24, 2012

    Lotharsson that is a lot of ground to cover and I for one can’t put in the time to argue the case. But I think it’s pretty evident from a solid examination of the evidence to hand that the models do indeed have their faults. I think it’s a long bow to draw to suggest they don’t. Your money quote though is this:

    “why hasn’t ANYONE come up with one that explains all the observations we have at least as well as the current lot do, but doesn’t imply serious concern about anthropogenic climate change?”

    I think there are a few hypotheses around that do exactly that, but as yet they haven’t gained sufficient traction to have serious money spent modelling their parameters. The issue there is simply that the current paradigm if you will doesn’t admit to another way to consider the matter, but that may change in time. or it may not. Perhaps the current paradigm will stand the test of time.

    But that’s not the subject of this post. The matter we have before us is a set of graphs that apparently show an acceleration in SLR which therefore conforms to the predictions of the AGW hypothesis.

    I have argued that those graphs do not show this. SD has argued that he has empirical data that demonstrates SLR is NOT accelerating in his locale. I agree with that view and have posed the question – where is the real world effect of the supposed dangerous SLR?

    Some respondents have suggested that the future will see the acceleration increase for all sorts of reasons, mostly invoking arm waving claims of tipping points and so on. Poor old Lionel A is away with the pixies, and Bill, well, he just foams at the mouth and makes no sense at all.

    I simply look at the temp trends in recent years, the SLR graphs above, the CO2 values, and the complete and utter lack of change in all the indices for extreme weather and say… umm, No, it just aint happening how you expected, guys.

  8. #8 Chris O'Neill
    December 24, 2012

    Bolt for PM:

    it just aint happening how you expected

    Global temperature is rising just as expected: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/compare2.jpg (from here).

    You need your eyes testing if you can’t see this.

  9. #9 spangled drongo
    December 24, 2012
  10. #10 spangled drongo
    December 24, 2012

    And probably the most important one that has been screened out because of its “inconvenient truth”:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ld2_1kyr11.png

  11. #11 Bolt for PM
    December 24, 2012

    Chris O’Neill, my eyes may need testing it’s true. But they sure can see what’s happening in the three graphs in this post. As for the graph you have posted, well… I’m not really sure what to make of it.

    From my layperson’s eyeballing of it, the temp trend is relatively flat since about 2000. Taking the starting point of 0.1 and ending at just under 0.3. 0.2 over what, 20 years? You’ll note too the step change in 2002 after which we see quite a flat trend.

    Now again, maybe it’s my aging eyes, but all of that would seem to sit at the bottom of the IPCC range. Which as you’ll note, has reduced its lower bound with each report.

    This is more dramatically in evidence from the leaked SOD for AR5:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-4_with.png?w=640&h=548

    Nooo… sorry, can’t see it. Maybe your eyes just have an AGW enhancer fitted?

  12. #12 Chris O'Neill
    December 24, 2012

    Chek thinks that remote sensors adjusted by stats and computers and observed measurements from tidal gauges around the world outweigh observed measurements from tidal gauges in a very small part of the world.

    Usual errors corrected.

  13. #13 Chris O'Neill
    December 24, 2012

    your brain needs testing

    In denialworld Greenland is bigger than the whole world.

    We all know whose brain needs testing.

  14. #14 Chris O'Neill
    December 24, 2012

    And probably the most important one that has been cherrypicked

    Statements corrected while you wait.

  15. #15 Chris O'Neill
    December 24, 2012

    Bolt for PM:

    From my layperson’s eyeballing of it, the temp trend is relatively flat since about 2000.

    As a layman, you probably won’t know what statistical significance means, but perhaps you have no problem with repeating statements about lack of statistical significance from longer periods than 12 years, e.g. 16 years.

    Now again, maybe it’s my aging eyes, but all of that would seem to sit at the bottom of the IPCC range.

    Yep, definitely your ageing eyes. I recommend glasses with 1 or 2 diopters. For example 2005 was at the top of the TAR range.

    Which as you’ll note, has reduced its lower bound with each report.

    I’m aware that a standard denial technique is to make a big deal out of tiny differences.

    This is more dramatically in evidence from the leaked SOD for AR5

    Instead of wasting time posting uninformative and misleading links, why don’t you read what I actually linked to that goes through this in a lot more technical detail: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/

  16. #16 Vince Whirlwind
    December 24, 2012

    Why are people linking to misinformational internet blogs run by unqualified weathermen who’ve been caught out being wrong over and over again instead of to primary sources?

  17. #17 spangled drongo
    December 24, 2012

    CON, if you bothered to pay attention you would have seen that the local tide gauges agree with my obs.

    And the point anyone would draw from that is that if SLs have only moved downwards locally for ~70 years, then there is not much SLR happening anywhere, accelerating or otherwise.

    Anyone other than an ideologue, that is.

    Vince, try to deal with the message and put your gun away.

  18. #18 David B. Benson
    December 24, 2012

    Bolt for PM — Statistics is used so we don’t fool ourselves. I don’t trust the eyeball approach.

  19. #19 David B. Benson
    December 24, 2012

    chameleon — There are many kinds of climate models. The largest are the AOGCMs in which physics is used. Some important matters are too difficult to do using just physics. A primary example is ENSO. So the El Nino and La Nina patterns are generated by an ARMA model with parameters based on the known statistics of ENSO.

    So in a few small matters (some) AOGCMs use a small amount of parameterization.

  20. #20 spangled drongo
    December 24, 2012

    ” I don’t trust the eyeball approach.”

    Well, not if you’re blind.

    How about the brail method?

    D’you think that watchin’ the tide roll in for ~70 years and no sign of SLR would do it for you?

    David, you must have some idea of the equilibrium of water at your age.

  21. #21 Bolt for PM
    December 24, 2012

    David Benson. “I don’t trust the eyeball approach.” But… wasn’t that the very basis of this blog post? Look at our graphs, see what they show?

    Vince W, what can I say. It’s sometimes best to reread your words before you post them.

    Chris O’Neill I’ll try to get the time to have a read of that post. But at the end of the day, various commenters here post up graphs to illustrate their point. Maybe statistical techniques can draw more from the data than is evident from these graphs, but you have to be kidding yourself if you think they show what you claim.

    Meanwhile, where’s the actual physical evidence that SLR is having any effect? Anywhere at all. No graphs. No “statistical significance”. No “my brain is bigger than yours” waffle. Just some simple, everyday real life observations. Even just one.

  22. #22 Chris O'Neill
    December 24, 2012

    Dumbo:

    CON, if you bothered to pay attention you would have seen that the local tide gauges agree with my obs.

    How dumb can you get? Where did I say they didn’t? No wonder you’re a denialist, you’re just so plain dumb.

  23. #23 Chris O'Neill
    December 24, 2012

    then there is not much SLR happening anywhere

    You are in just plain denial of tide gauges in other parts of the world.

  24. #24 Chris O'Neill
    December 24, 2012

    Bolt for PM:

    I’ll try to get the time to have a read of that post.

    Oh whoopee doo. It must be such an onerous task reading graphs and the small amount of text needed to explain them, seeing as how your eyesight is so feeble.

    these graphs, but you have to be kidding yourself if you think they show what you claim.

    You’re certainly kidding yourself, without a shadow of a doubt, if you think the trend of actual temperature is not within the trend limits of FAR, SAR and TAR. It’s also plain in this graph: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rates.jpg

    But I guess you must have your denial lenses on so you’ll just dismiss it out of hand as usual.

  25. #25 David B. Benson
    December 24, 2012

    spangled drongo & Bolt for PM — When I was in high school in the 1950s “How to Lie with Statistics” first appeared and I wrote an extra-credit review of it. I believe it is still in print.

    To use statistics properly requires doing a certain amount of calculation. In those days an electro-mechanical calculator was a big help. Nowadays statistics is much more advanced and we have computers. Tamino, on his Open Mind blog, shows how to properly analyze geophysical time series.

    So that we don’t fool ourselves.

  26. #26 Bolt for PM
    December 24, 2012

    David Benson, I’m sure statistical techniques are very advanced now, and I am equally sure I wouldn’t understand most of it at all. But this post tried to illustrate an increase in the rate of SLR by showing several graphs.

    Now, regardless of the slicing and dicing, if those graphs can be taken as relatively accurate, I cannot see how you can argue for an increase in the rate of sea level rise.

    The first graph shows a fairly steady rise since about 1930.

    The second graph uses a shorter period, but in this case it demonstrates a clearly steady rate of rise in those 20 years. Even the text says “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.”

    The third graph may be held to be suspect for all sorts of reasons but if we only had an instrumental record dating from 2002, what trend would you assign to that record?

    Of course using various arbitrary dates and periods is cherry picking, but at the end of the day, IF the rate of SLR has slowed for whatever reason, it would show up. As indeed it has. Does that mean it will continue in that vein? perhaps not.

    But none of those graphs or the statements made support a case for an accelerating SLR.

    Now, both SD and I claim that regardless of those graphs, the actual picture locally seems to be that there is nothing happening. And it is the real world, local effects that are what the whole fuss is about, not how well you’ve geophysically analysed the data.

    Chris O’Neill, you’re foaming now. I love it when you guys do that. That last graph… oh my aching sides. Lordy Lordy Lordy how that Tamino gilds the lily.

  27. #27 David B. Benson
    December 24, 2012

    Bolt for PM — see Figure 3 in
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/sea-level-rise-faster-than-projected/
    which has smoothed SLR data for the 20th century in the first portion of the graph.

    Nothing is happening? What effect did SLR have on Frakenstorm Sandy’s height at Battery Park? Why does not matter, at least to downtown New Yorkers?

  28. #28 chameleon
    December 24, 2012

    Thankyou once again David B Benson for actually dealing with the questions & dealing with the actual message.
    I agree the big AOGCMs use physical data. However, they still use stats no matter how extra tecchie and complicated and clever they have becom

    population models that use that data.

  29. #29 chameleon
    December 24, 2012

    Sorry,
    Samsung tablet fail.
    What I attempted to write was that there are big global economic models or big global population models and many others that use specific data as well.
    At their base they are still using statistics.

  30. #30 spangled drongo
    December 24, 2012

    Well CON, it’s at least a relief to see you agree with my SL obs anyway.

    However strange your method of agreement may be.

    Now that we have established agreement on local SLs over ~70 years, what do you think could be causing other tide gauges to disagree?

    So David, you still think that Stats beat measured obs?

    And do you think with post-tropical storm [not hurricane] Sandy that a king tide and sea surge combined, of over 14 feet may have had something to do with the flooding?

    You may have seen the horrifying scenes of the Fukushima tsunami for instance. Sea surges, storm or shock related have nothing to do with SLR and they will always occur given the right circumstances.

  31. #31 Bolt for PM
    December 24, 2012

    David Benson, that post of Taminos is remarkable. I know I am not able to learnedly argue statistical techniques but that looks like a snowjob to me. Let me get this straight. The model projections are averages of many many runs. And the models have to make a lot of assumptions, depend on initial conditions, and ignore some factors. So to compare them properly with the real world, we smooth the real world data. say what? There is only one run of the real world and it is what it is. Either the model’s projections match what DID happen or they didn’t. You can’t make up something different and say hey, this is what happened and look at the match.

    How well did the model projections of say 30 years ago match what really happened? Why do you think today’s models have got it a lot better? Because you can load the initial conditions to ensure a decent hindcast? What if we find in 10 years that the models really did get it wrong? Tamino’s (or R&F was it) fiddling will look pretty silly then won’t it? You might read some of the commentary on the leaked SOD of AR5, there does seem to me to be some open questions that were not acknowledged in earlier reports, wouldn’t you agree?

    Hurricane Sandy. A remarkable confluence of events that saw the record storm surge cause so much devastation. However you will note the record was not in itself historically freakish given the factors such as very low barometric pressure, high tide, full moon, etc etc. Have you some data to offer that actually apportions some measure of the impact of SLR? Here is a graph of previous storm surges:
    http://www.geo.brown.edu/georesearch/esh/QE/Publications/GSAB2001/JDonnelly/Succotash/300dpi/Fig03.jpg

    I can’t claim this is accurate but it is in a journal. GSA Bulletin Volume 113 no. 6, pages 714 –727 (June 2001).
    I’m not arguing that SLR did NOT have an impact, but that storm was one of those extreme events we can expect every so often and it would have been bad even if sea level had been several cm lower. I suspect that local sea levels have very little bearing on the effects of storm surges anywa

  32. #32 Bolt for PM
    December 24, 2012

    Sorry last para should have read:

    I’m not arguing that SLR did NOT have an impact, but that storm was one of those extreme events we can expect every so often and it would have been bad even if sea level had been several cm lower. I suspect that local sea levels have very little bearing on the effects of storm surges anyway, though that’s just a gut feeling. But hey, happy to be shown I am wrong. Where’s your evidence?

  33. #33 Chris O'Neill
    December 24, 2012

    Bolt for PM, spare us the hypocrisy.

    how that Tamino gilds the lily

    Says the layman who thinks he knows better than the mathematician.

    You have provided absolutely zilch to demonstrate that the trend of actual temperature is not within the trend limits of FAR, SAR and TAR. And then all you can come up with is “how that Tamino gilds the lily”. What a learned response that is.

  34. #34 Bolt for PM
    December 24, 2012

    Gee, you got me again Chris O’Neill. I see in that graph the same game as the SLR ones. But what do we see in that most inconvenient of places, the real world?

    We start in 1990 with what, 0.03? And 2010 is at around 0.05 or so. That’s 0.02 for 20 years. Yep, got me worried. Tamino’s graph implies that temp is rising at 0.01-0.02 per YEAR. By my reckoning, that’s as much as 0.4 over 20 years. We should be closing out in 2010 at around 0.06-0.07.

    Alright, that’s a bit unfair, after all, it’s the trend isn’t it? Ahahahahaha… yeah, sure it is. Let me take a look. Ummm… oh look at that. Temps all over the shop from 1990 to 2000, mostly affected by the great El Nino of 1998. But from 2000 to 2010, it’s mostly flat.

    You see Chris, you can do all the fancy footwork in the world, but at the end of the day, what happens is what happens. And what happened is not very much at all.

    But you might be right. With enough arm waving, maybe it’ll get so much worse. I am so worried. Not.

  35. #35 Lotharsson
    December 24, 2012

    Seriously?
    Did you miss the fact that Lionel A is blaming his crappy holiday weather on AGW?

    Nope.

    But you apparently missed the point I was making. You appear to be claiming that climate models say we can control the weather. They don’t.

    You also appear to be arguing that climate change doesn’t increase the likelihood of the kinds of weather events that Lionel is talking about, especially at the tail ends (both of them) of the distribution. That’s not correct either.

  36. #36 Lionel A
    December 24, 2012

    chameleon:,

    Isn’t what you’re complaining about just local weather? I’m sorry that the weather is not being kind to you over your holiday period but you’re not alone and we can’t control the weather no matter what the climate models say.
    Bad weather is just bad weather Lionel

    With that, and the remainder of your reply you reveal that you are woefully ignorant (at best) about climate science and especially how climate change can affect weather as the remark from Deke Arndt of NCDC reveals ‘Climate trains the boxer, but weather throws the punches‘, so no it isn’t, ‘just local weather.

    Now what about the word ‘global’ that I used do you not understand?

    2012 – A year of extreme weather and take note of the comment by Nick Graham from 0:29.

    I also well acknowledged that we in Britain were not alone, you clearly didn’t absorb that either. Another comprehension fail. This is a common track record amongst you ilk.

    Sorry but you have revealed your true colours as a denier, plain and simple not matter what other excuses you raise.

    Most of us here have studied this topic for a decade or more and know the history of the science and of the denial machine and we easily pick up on the wilfully ignorant and/or the ideological denier, or even those being paid to infest blogs with rabid anti-science.

    Having studied this topic, with input from many scientific disciplines, for so long we come not from a position of faith but from trust in the science. They are quite different things except to those suffering from, say, dyspraxia or some other learning ability affliction.

    Sorry but your true colours are now clearly visible.

  37. #37 Lotharsson
    December 24, 2012

    But I think it’s pretty evident from a solid examination of the evidence to hand that the models do indeed have their faults. I think it’s a long bow to draw to suggest they don’t.

    It would be, if someone was making that claim on their behalf. Bet you can’t quote someone here doing that, and bet you can’t get anyone to agree with that statement.

    It’s ALSO clear from a solid examination of the evidence to date that the models (a) do a reasonably good job on the most important metrics and are improving on many of the others and (b) are doing much better than any of the alternatives implied by any of the “skeptic” positions.

    I think there are a few hypotheses around that do exactly that, but as yet they haven’t gained sufficient traction to have serious money spent modelling their parameters.

    1. What hypotheses?

    2. Why haven’t fossil fuel companies – or governments who are desperate to avoid political losses from carbon reduction measures – thrown what amounts to pocket change for those organisations at it?

    Your claim appears to be at odds with known forces.

    The issue there is simply that the current paradigm if you will doesn’t admit to another way to consider the matter,…

    …which doesn’t imply what you seem to hope it will. The current paradigm will change if a better way is convincingly demonstrated.

    I repeat my question. Why haven’t (say) the fossil fuel companies invested some of the change stuck down the back of their couch into such an effort? What on earth would hold such hard-nosed businessmen back from a small investment that could have a huge political and financial payoff for them?

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    December 24, 2012

    … there are big global economic models or big global population models and many others that use specific data as well.
    At their base they are still using statistics

    And at their base climate models are using well known physics. (And climate science has pretty strong non-model evidence for the central claims.)

    That’s the key difference I’ve been trying to get you to cotton on to.

    We don’t have anywhere near as robust a level of empirically testable understanding of global economics and global population that physics provides to climate science.

    Arguing that climate models “at their base” are using statistics rather than physics is deeply misguided – and concluding that therefore they can be arbitrarily tweaked to produce a given outcome is fallacious.

    FWIW I’ve worked on some kinds of computer economic models with well respected economics professors – and even on those it simply wasn’t possible to get a desired result on one metric without completely screwing up some other metric(s) – unless the result you wanted was a fairly natural outcome of the model. The existing data is a huge constraint.

    Also, contra Bolt For PM’s allegations:

    Because you can load the initial conditions to ensure a decent hindcast?

    even in models that may be largely statistical at their base no-one competent -no-one – over-tunes their model for the best hindcast. (Any fool can see why that would be stupid.) There are well-established procedures for tuning your model based on some of the historical data, and then testing the result on other historical data so that you don’t fall into the trap that Bolt for PM seems to think every single climate modeller has fallen into. Mind you, arguing that isn’t very smart when the literature is full of people measuring how well their models perform via these kinds of procedures.

    Also contra Bolt for PM, there are plenty of literature articles – and even blog posts – comparing model projections with real world outcomes that eventuated after the projections were made – which makes his implication even more ignorant.

  39. #39 Lotharsson
    December 24, 2012

    We start in 1990 with what, 0.03? And 2010 is at around 0.05 or so. That’s 0.02 for 20 years.

    Good effin’ grief.

    You’re now resorting to start and end temperatures rather than trend calculations?

    That’s Monckton level bulldust that only takes in audiences ignorant of basic statistics and basic science – which rules out the majority of readers here.

    But wait, you acknowledge it’s the trend that matters!

    But from 2000 to 2010, it’s mostly flat.

    And then you, who accuse a professional statistician of “gilding the lily” choose a period that’s historically been way too short for statistical significance, and fail to test for statistical significance.

    And that’s ignoring the other posts directing you to the trend with various short term natural forcings and variations removed, and the ocean heat content data.

    Your opinion is clearly uninformed and uninformative, if not downright misinformative.

    Better trolls please.

  40. #40 Lotharsson
    December 24, 2012

    This post addresses what both Bolt For PM and chameleon appear to be claiming:

    Critics thunder that the models contain a “large element of subjectivity” with parameters “tweaked by those who operate the models” to achieve results that conform to scientists’ preconceptions. Some seem to think that these models simply represent a grandiose exercise in curve fitting, forecasting future climate based on the trend in temperatures over the past few decades.

    Go read the whole thing. Then go find (say) one of the RealClimate posts comparing future projections of models (made some time in the past) with what happened after the projections were made.

    For even more LOLZ go find a blog post that compares the projections published by “skeptics” with what subsequently happened and ask yourself which has the better track record.

  41. #41 Chris O'Neill
    December 24, 2012

    Bolt for PM:

    But what do we see in that most inconvenient of places, the real world?

    Har, har.

    We start in 1990 with what, 0.03? And 2010 is at around 0.05 or so.

    Where do you get those numbers from? Out of your ass?

  42. #42 GSW
    December 24, 2012

    @Loth

    Myles Allen has a slightly different view to Gavin,

    http://climateprediction.net/content/modelling-climate

    Introduction to Climate Models-
    “The equations are tweaked, within reasonable boundaries, so that the model does as well as possible at producing past and current climates (compared to archived observations). It can then be used to try to predict what the climate is going to do in the future.”

    The models aren’t pure physics as Gavin was trying to claim – that’s why they all have different climate sensitivities, different aerosol forcings etc to match the observed 20th century warming- more curve fitting than science. He’s just doing an Amstrup!
    ;)

  43. #43 Chris O'Neill
    December 24, 2012

    SD:

    local SLs over ~70 years, what do you think could be causing other tide gauges to disagree?

    Why are you asking me? Do you think I’m an oceanographer? I suggest you find out what people who research this field say (apart from the few who are clearly deranged).

  44. #44 Olaus Petri
    December 24, 2012

    GSW, Merry Christmas to yuo and the Deltoids. And true is that climate models aren’t just physics, its also musicolocy or in Jeff’s case mycoloogy:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/death-threats-anyone-austrian-prof-global-warming-deniers-should-be-sentenced-to-death/

    Climate science is very organic! ;-)

  45. #45 GSW
    December 24, 2012

    @Olaus

    Merry Christmas! I saw your post about it on the other thread. Another “alarmist” with odd views, how typical.

    “More generally, I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths”

    So he’s rationalized a “good reason” for killing people. Are all alarmists nutters? they seem to have more than their fair share at any rate; the same view’s been expressed by various Deltoids in the past, the rest keep quiet to signify some sort of agreement I suppose.

    What is “Systematic Musicology”? Wiki has it as,

    “Systematic musicology includes music acoustics, the science and technology of acoustical musical instruments, physiology, psychology, sociology, philosophy and computing”

    So I take it he’ll also claim to be a scientist then, like jeff, but probably numerate.

  46. #46 chek
    December 24, 2012

    So, this alleged page can’t actually be viewed but is brought via well known denier paranoid flakes Codling and Roger Talltales.

    Hmmmm…..

  47. #47 Bolt for PM
    December 24, 2012

    Lotharsson, what a lot of waffle. No wonder you can convince yourself of anything.

    “You’re now resorting to start and end temperatures rather than trend calculations?”

    Yes, I am. And it’s the same point I made re SLR. Trends and statistical machinations are all very wonderful but it’s the real world that counts. Now OK, I admit to using the numbers you guys have posted up and maybe they are wrong. But what good is all the worry about AGW if it doesn’t actually happen? All your hand wringing is about a projected real world effect, and that effect must be an actual temperature. Now over the period you are all so playfully offering up, the 1990 to 2010 period of the IPCC projections, what have you got?

    0.02 from start to finish. Nothing happened boys. Zip. Zilch. OK, so let’s play with trends starting in 1990. After all, that’s what the IPCC is doing with their projections. 0.02 from start to finish is 0.001 per year. Colour me terrified.

    As to the shorter period from 2000 to 2010, sure it doesn’t meet your outraged demands re stats evaluation. But it’s what I argued re SLR. IF something changes, it does so, regardless of what your pretty graphs say to you. That’s what happens in the real world (that’s the one outside boys, not on your Excel screen). So, IF things changed in 2002 and temps went flat in response, then they went flat. Doesn’t matter what happened in 1959 or 1880.

    Chris O’Neill you drip. Tamino’s graph of obs versus IPCC projections. Gilding the lily. Are you really as dim as you seem? Or do you practice? Look, the first IPCC projection in FAR was in 1990. How close was it? Where did obs fall? Now, SAR was in 1995, TAR in 2001 and AR4 in 2007. What do you reckon, would they have gotten better at guessing how the period 1990-2010 would go? Gee, I’ll go out on a limb here. I’ll betcha that AR5 will get the projections from 1990-2010 exactly right. Those crafty modelers, they are good aren’t they?

  48. #48 chek
    December 24, 2012

    “Trends and statistical machinations are all very wonderful but it’s the real world that counts”

    So BFPM, you looked up the actual data and then checked the locations and….. oh that’s right you didn’t, you just composed another ignorant rant on that of which you know next to zero about how data aren;t measurements taken from the real world but some otherworldly pixie dust, or whatever it is your tiny mind imagines.

    You don’t have the intelligence to either do the work, or presuming you get that far, understand it.

  49. #49 Bolt for PM
    December 24, 2012

    Lional A… a BBC report on extreme weather? Oh my Lordy. Hahahahahahahahahahaha….

    Oh stop it please. It’s Christmas morning here and I’m doubled over laughing. Guess it could be way worse, the weather could strike at any moment.

    Ahahahahahahahahahaha…

  50. #50 Bolt for PM
    December 24, 2012

    chek, what are you trying to say? Spit it out in English. I didn’t do anything weird, I used the exact numbers the other pro bed wetters posted up. You got something different, let’s see it.

  51. #51 chek
    December 24, 2012

    The data are the data, BFPM. Either you know how to use it or you don’t. Bear in mind this isn’t a remedial school for the stupid, although wandering in here with your moniker one has to wonder about that aspect.

    Man up and get a grip of what the numbers tell you – check it against stories in the local press to be sure – or get a grown up to explain it.to you.

  52. #52 Bolt for PM
    December 24, 2012

    So chek, you got nuthin eh? Look, I could go off and do all that you say. But on this very blog people like Chris O’Neill, Lotharsson, David Benson et al have posted a variety of graphs and numbers. So they must be confident these show something.

    Most of these use the ‘global’ average temperature anomaly – it is routinely used to show just how AGW is progressing. That seems good enough for the IPCC. OK, happy to go with that for the argument.

    Now, the IPCC began its projections in 1990 with the FAR. So, I simply look at how the real world acted in that period. I used this graph:
    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/compare2.jpg

    Now, you look at it, tell me what we started with and what we finished with. Just do that and tell me what you find. It’s not the easiest to read maybe, but it looks to me like a spread of 0.02-ish. If I use the 2012 figure it’s worse for you – down to maybe 0.1-ish.

  53. #53 Bolt for PM
    December 24, 2012

    Sorry, typo. Last para should be:

    Now, you look at it, tell me what we started with and what we finished with. Just do that and tell me what you find. It’s not the easiest to read maybe, but it looks to me like a spread of 0.2-ish. If I use the 2012 figure it’s worse for you – down to maybe 0.1-ish.

  54. #54 David B. Benson
    December 24, 2012

    chameleon — Lotharson made the point already but I’ll elaborate a little.

    Climate models use physics. Economic models are based on some highly non-physical assumptions. Population models might fair a bit better but simply have not the breadth of understandings which enter into climate models.

  55. #55 chek
    December 24, 2012

    BFPM, you’re talking about sea level, then point to a temperature graph? Sorry, I’m not psychic or fruitcake enough to make that connection easily.

  56. #56 Chris O'Neill
    December 24, 2012

    Bolt for PM:

    Chris O’Neill you drip

    Yes it’s all about the abuse isn’t it? Because that’s all you’ve got. Whatever you imagine the numbers are is totally at odds with reality. e.g. GISStemp (which is one of the sets Tamino uses) goes from 0.37 deg C in 1990 to 0.64 deg C in 2010. How you get 0.03 and 0.05 whose difference is supposed to bear some relationship to the corresponding GISStemp difference is beyond belief.

    I’ll leave you to your delusions. Being in denial, that’s all you’ve got.

  57. #57 Lotharsson
    December 25, 2012

    I’m not seeing Myles Allan say anything significantly different from anyone else in that quote. I suspect you don’t or won’t comprehend enough to understand why.

    The models aren’t pure physics as Gavin was trying to claim – that’s why they all have different climate sensitivities, different aerosol forcings etc to match the observed 20th century warming- more curve fitting than science.

    I don’t see anyone claiming they are pure physics. Everyone involved acknowledges that certain aspects are discretised and certain aspects are parameterised. What they do say is that you are strongly bound by (a) the physics, (b) historical data and (c) the assessment of multiple simultaneous criteria. Furthermore the claim that models are tweaked in order to falsely produce anthropogenic warming trends or much larger warming trends than reality or are or “more exercises in curve fitting” is untrue.

    No-one who implies this can yet explain why a fossil fuel company hasn’t exposed this alleged fudging by producing an “unfudged” model that shows nothing to worry about. Heck, a talented amateur could presumably do it – the source code for a number of models is freely available, as are significant historical data sets. None of the people making this claim have yet been able to explain why the models end up showing climate sensitivities in much the same range as those derived from paleoclimate data either – at least, not without invoking unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    December 25, 2012

    Yes, I am.

    So we have an admission that you haven’t the first clue on this subject.

    All your hand wringing is about a projected real world effect, and that effect must be an actual temperature.

    And you follow it up with a second, albeit more nuanced, admission of the same.

    For starters, you really didn’t comprehend the link to the post about ocean heat accumulation, did you? And you didn’t understand the post where the impacts of some of the larger natural variations were removed from the recent temperature record, did you? The whole concept that natural variation and anthropogenic forcings act at the same time, and the former can work against the latter for a decade or two, but not forever – that was too complicated for you? Of course it was – you clearly haven’t even understood the very basic reason why trends are far more revealing than comparing endpoints in a noisy signal such as the global temperature records.

    I mean, it’s good of you to reveal just how misguided you are on these matters, but you might not want to parade it around quite so pridefully whilst insulting other people who are pointing out some of your miscomprehensions.

  59. #59 spangled drongo
    December 25, 2012

    “Why are you asking me? Do you think I’m an oceanographer? ”

    Dunno what you are CON but you sure act as if you know everything. Mainly by telling anyone who offers an opinion, even one that apparently agrees with your own, how dumb they are.

    So now you are admitting your knowledge is limited? I haven’t noticed you being as refreshingly honest as this before.

    But maybe you only do confessions at Christmas.

  60. #60 spangled drongo
    December 25, 2012

    But to get back to why tide gauges can show SLR yet obs can show a fall is because SLR theoretically occurs if, for instance, daily occurring half-tide levels rise yet annually occurring highest-tide levels fall.

    Personal obs can easily pick highest-tide levels but only long term measurement can pick half-tide levels.

    It is the less often occurring highest-tide levels that really impact human infrastructure. If half-tide levels rise 10 cm and highest-tide levels either fall or don’t rise there is very little to be concerned about.

    This is often what has been happening at tide gauges around the world.

    This is not to say that cyclones, storms and other forces won’t create dangerous SLR above existing SLs as has always happened.

  61. #61 Neil White
    December 25, 2012

    Spangled Drongo:

    “If half-tide levels rise 10 cm and highest-tide levels either fall or don’t rise there is very little to be concerned about.

    This is often what has been happening at tide gauges around the world. ”

    This sounds like nonsense to me. Can you back this up with some citations, or tidal analyses or a clear explanation of what it is that you’re trying to say, or a list of some of the gauges where this has been happening, or something?

    From your wording “This is often…” it sounds like you think that this has been happening at quite a few gauges?

    You don’t know much about tides do you?

  62. #62 spangled drongo
    December 25, 2012

    Neil White, tide gauge data on the web does not provide that sort of data but I have beed told by scientists and engineers responsible for tide gauges that this is how SLR at tide gauges can translate into no observable SLR.

    I have requested a detailed print out of the local tide gauge data but so far it has not been forthcoming.

    Are you saying that a daily raised half-tide level would not show SLR if there was an annual reduced or non-raised highest-tide level?

    “You don’t know much about tides do you?”

    Enough to know that after observing them and designing vessels to cope with the vaguaries of them for most of my life they haven’t risen any higher than when I first started.

    How about you?

  63. #63 Lionel A
    December 25, 2012

    Bolt ‘through the neck’

    Lurched with this:

    Lional A… a BBC report on extreme weather? Oh my Lordy. Hahahahahahahahahahaha…

    Which of course totally ignores the fact the the pertinent bit I was referring to was when a person with scientific qualifications described why there has been a massive increase in the amount of H2O moving through the atmosphere-ocean couple.

    It seems that your comprehension fail does not stop with the written word but extends to video presentation too. Perhaps you failed to get the best out of the lectures higher education.

    When warm surface waters evaporate into vapour what happens to the temperature at that point?

    Ever heard of the concept of latent heat?

    Temperatures do not alone tell us about the amount of heat energy in a system we require an understanding of physics, based upon well documented experiments, to show the amount of heat other than sensible in a system.

    Rarely do we see any demonstrations of understanding of such from the likes of you.

    PS
    Using a moniker such Bolt for PM is clearly your attempt at winding us up, the equivalent of waving a red cloth at a bull, so right off the bat you don’t expect to be taken as having any serious valid points to make. In other words you are a self declared troll.

  64. #64 Neil White
    December 25, 2012

    Spangled Drongo:

    “I have requested a detailed print out of the local tide gauge data but so far it has not been forthcoming.”

    You can download hourly tide gauge data from the BoM/NTCs ABSLMP tide gauge network around Australia from their web site, Please go to it and demonstrate what you are claiming.

    “Are you saying that a daily raised half-tide level would not show SLR if there was an annual reduced or non-raised highest-tide level?”

    No, that’s not what I’m saying.

  65. #65 chameleon
    December 25, 2012

    Lotharrson and David B,
    unfortunately, except for a different perspective, I can’t see where you think you have disagreed with me.
    Of course economic models and population models use different data sets to climate models!
    Like doh!
    I would even agree that climate models are more complicated because they deal with far more relationships between variables.
    However, they are still using stats and mountains of data.
    They are essentially using the same discipline, which is not science, it is stats.
    They even graph and physically present in a similar manner.
    They are also open to different conclusions in a similar manner as Tim did indeed highlight at this post.
    They are not magic doomsday soothsayers. They are merely useful tools to help plot and graph the world around us.
    IMHO they are being somewhat misused and misrepresented by people and politics who are mistakenly trying to claim they are infallible and that they have uncovered an alarming truth and that it is all ‘settled’.

  66. #66 Yet another Rob
    December 25, 2012

    Chameleon wrote:
    > They are essentially using the same discipline, which is not science, it is stats.

    GIven that statistics is “the study of the collection, organization, analysis, interpretation and presentation of data”[1] it’s kind of hard to escape it in quantitiative science.

    > They are merely useful tools to help plot and graph the world around us.

    Yes. Given the current understanding of atmospheric physics, chemistry, observational data and paleo evidence from ice cores, sediments, etc. we get the current models.

    They are far from perfect – but the only way to get ‘no problem’ outcomes from them is to start them running with rules that aren’t seen in the real world e.g. no feedbacks leading to ~3 degrees C sensitivity to doubled CO2.

  67. #67 Yet another Rob
    December 25, 2012

    Sorry, [1] refers to “The Oxford Dictionary of Statistical Terms”.

  68. #68 spangled drongo
    December 25, 2012

    Neil White, I offered this scenario to you here as an explanation for statistical SLR over observational non-SLR.

    First you say: “This sounds like nonsense to me.”

    Then you say you are not saying that it wouldn’t show what I claim.

    So now you obviously don’t think it is nonsense.

    So are you just saying now that it couldn’t possibly happen and never does?

    And you didn’t answer MY question about YOUR expertise with tides.

  69. #69 Lotharsson
    December 26, 2012

    Of course economic models and population models use different data sets to climate models! Like doh!

    Like doh! That wasn’t the basis of my point!

    Since you apparently can’t understand where I disagreed with you let me help you out. Here’s you reiterating your false claim:

    They are essentially using the same discipline, which is not science, it is stats.

    And since you’re prone to misunderstanding my disagreement with you, and most of what I’ve written earlier has gone way above your head let me spell it out. The models are indeed using science no matter how many times you claim otherwise, and they are not “essentially doing stats” rather than science, no matter how many times you say it. They are doing science – with, as is rather common in science, the aid of some stats. You seem to have the idea that there’s no physics involved and that models are malleable at will to produce any kind of result you want because they are little more than a glorified curve fitting exercise. (Go download one and start understanding the code…)

    And worse still, if you bothered to look at the evidence you’d find that some of the key conclusions are fairly easily reached without the aid of a single computer model. (Try this as one massively simplified example, but you may have to wait until the server becomes accessible again.)

    The rest of your comment fares little better. You are trying to paint a false equivalence, apparently based on personal ignorance and/or incomprehension.

    I realise, of course, that just like everything else you’ve been pointed at this will fail to sink in. Like doh!

  70. #70 David B. Benson
    December 26, 2012

    chameleon — Once again Lotharsson has rather fully explained.

    But I’ll attempt a bit more. A climate model begins with the conservation of energy. [There is direct empirical evidence for this, based on Emmy Noether’s (first) theorem]. No such conservation principle holds in either economics or population biology, It then goes on the conservation of momentum. [Different empirical experiment, but same theorem.] We’ll also need Euler’s formulation of fluid dynamics not to mention Stefan’s Law and so on…

    But actual economics (as opposed to idealized academic exercises) is summarized in
    physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17435/does-the-global-financial-system-violate-laws-of-thermodynamics-and-energy-conse
    as aphysical. Indeed, the models are ‘just’ stats.

  71. #71 chameleon
    December 26, 2012

    Thanks YA Rob,
    I agree with that entirely except for your inference that I claimed ‘no problem’.
    What I pointed out earlier was real time data does not match the original ‘alarming’ projections especially in relation to SLR.
    Lotharrson,
    you are essentially ‘furiously agreeing’. Splitting hairs between science and scientific data as opposed to the example of economics and economic data neither proves or disproves a point that you think I made or you made.
    Our perspective is obviously different.
    Even though Tim chose to call it ‘unscrupulous’ he actually did highlight how changing start/stop datum points can alter the conclusions.
    Considering the methodology and the points were clearly outlined, I question the ‘unscrupulous’ tag.
    It would’ve been unscrupulous if it wasn’t clearly explained.
    It is actually the nature of the beast we are apparently furiously agreeing about.

  72. #72 Lotharsson
    December 26, 2012

    …you are essentially ‘furiously agreeing’.

    ROFL!

    Oh, the delicious irony of you telling me that my explicit disagreement, repeatedly explained, is actually agreement! How could I have been so mistaken as to write the opposite of what you claim I meant to write? Doh indeed!

    You go on to emit more ludicrous handwaving attempts to justify your claim based on denying clear differences so that you can claim two very different things are “essentially” the same, and then reiterate claims that have been previously debunked.

    I mean, you couldn’t make this stuff up.

    (Well, you obviously can, but most people couldn’t. You have the advantage of feeling free to choose your own interpretations even if they are in direct contradiction of the facts.)

  73. #73 Chris O'Neill
    December 26, 2012

    Dumbo:

    Dunno what you are CON but you sure act as if you know everything.

    Dumbo, just because I read a few tide-gauge graphs doesn’t mean I know everything. Just means I’m not so arrogant as to only be interested in tide gauges where I live.

  74. #74 Bernard J.
    December 26, 2012

    It’s probably not quite a dumb as lernard bernard and others claiming that deepening harbour entrances lowers SLs.

    Ah, a friend of janama and a Brother in his Band of Wrong.

    I did not say that dredging rivers near their mouths lowers sea level. I said that dredging near river mouths reduces the choke effect of the mouths, and lowers the mean local river level where such is still above mean sea level.

    Your sea wall is in a river that has been dredged.

    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”.

    Let’s test that, shall we?

    Here’s a map of the Nerang River from Chevron island to the mouth. Note the scale bar. For those who don’t want to fiddle with measurement, the scale bar shows that the seaward side of Chevron Island is approximately 6.67 km in a straight line from the mouth – it will be more by the time chainage distance is determined.

    I’d call something close to 7 km “several kilometres”. Heck, even if it were just one nautical mile from the mouth, that would put the island 1.852 kilometres from the mouth, which is by definition still “several kilometres”.

    The point though is that you are up the bloody river – and without a paddle. You are referring to riverine hydrology, and not to sea level.

    “You don’t know much about tides do you?”

    Enough to know that after observing them and designing vessels to cope with the vaguaries of them for most of my life they haven’t risen any higher than when I first started.

    Oh, so you “design… vessels to cope with the vaguaries [sic] of [tides]”. Surely you don’t mean anything like tying fenders to tinnies or – heaven forefend – nailing old tyres to jetties? Perhaps it all has to do with the paint that you use for your pad?

    Please elaborate. I have a few contacts at the Australian Maritime College who are world-class engineers in designing wave-piercing catamaran hulls, so I would like to run your claims past them to see just what your “designs” have to do with “the vaguaries [sic] of [tides]”.

    I have requested a detailed print out of the local tide gauge data but so far it has not been forthcoming.

    You’re a slow learner. I presented such data to you almost three years ago.

    Drongo, you’re out of your depth when discussing sea level. You are falling victim to unsophisticated folk ‘wisdom’ washed with ideology. It’s the same sort of thinking that leads to superstitions and quackery and a myriad of other nonsensical beliefs.

    Go sit on your jetty with a blankie on your knee and watch the tides turn. You have nothing more useful to offer.

  75. #75 chameleon
    December 26, 2012

    Lotharrson,
    I don’t know what your problem is.
    I am not denying differences I was pointing out the similarities which does not mean they are exactly the same.
    Nothing you have said disagrees with that.
    I agree that climate models use scientific data as do other models use relevant data.
    That therefore means they are not exactly the same.
    And once again I have to say : Like doh!
    However, they do have basic similarities which are indeed linked to stats not science.

  76. #76 Neil White
    December 26, 2012

    Following on from Bernard J’s excellent comment, in an environment like this changes to the configuration of the waterways can change the tidal regime. This has been shown for Liverpool Harbour in the UK (closer to the open sea than Chevron Island). There is a paper by Phil Woodworth and others on this. Sorry, I’m on leave, and don’t have access the exact reference. Of course, if you change the tidal regime you can also change the HAT, so maximum water levels (ignoring non-tidal effects) can change with changes in the configuration. If you throw in some storm surges, especially if they come at a very high tide, this confuses the issue further. Old benchmarks can’t be used to look at long-term changes in this situation.

    Bernard, I’ve been wondering what all this stuff about designing boats for the “vaguaries” of the tides is too. Thanks for putting it so well.

  77. #77 spangled drongo
    December 26, 2012

    “Just means I’m not so arrogant as to only be interested in tide gauges where I live.”

    CON, but still arrogant enough to insult people you agree with?

    ” I said that dredging near river mouths reduces the choke effect of the mouths, and lowers the mean local river level where such is still above mean sea level.”

    We’ve been through all that LB and I also agreed with that point. That is kiddie stuff. But as I said then, not only does it reduce those mean SLs, it reduces lowest SLs and raises highest SLs. IOW, where you have an increased opening, the two areas will be more in equilibrium.

    LB, you mean you still haven’t found out where the official mouth of the Nerang River is? Smarten up.

    Not only designed but designed, built and raced large and small yachts that have won international series and broken records doing so.

    I wouldn’t expect someone of your limited vision and unlimited arrogance to understand the complexities of trying to design and build an extremely deep draughted vessel with a high self righting index that can also cope with shoal water so I won’t elaborate but you haven’t got the slightest idea of what I have accomplished in this regard yet you are quite happy to claim that I am out of my depth.

    What a pompous bag of wind.

    As I have pointed out here, this benchmark of 49.9 years is but one of many around Moreton Bay over ~70 years of observations and they all agree that the highest tides are not as high as they were all that long ago.

  78. #78 Chris O'Neill
    December 26, 2012

    Spare me the strawman, dumbo.

  79. #79 spangled drongo
    December 26, 2012

    Wondering, were you Neil? Well now that you know, what about answering my question about your tide expertise?

    Or can I take from your no reply that you are just another Berny Blowhard?

  80. #80 Lotharsson
    December 26, 2012

    However, they do have basic similarities which are indeed linked to stats not science.

    Nope. The basics are very different.

    I guess you could try claiming it a few more times in the hope that will finally make it true.

  81. #81 spangled drongo
    December 26, 2012

    The great Bernard thinks that SLs are reduced by simply dredging river mouths.

    Don’t raise the bridge, lower the river, hey Berny?

    Was this your thesis for your PhD?

  82. #82 Bernard J.
    December 26, 2012

    But as I said then, not only does it reduce those mean SLs, it reduces lowest SLs and raises highest SLs. IOW, where you have an increased opening, the two areas will be more in equilibrium.

    You keep speaking about sea levels when you’re refering to a riverine system. Does this not ring a bell in your head?

    With respect to dredging raising “highest s[ea] l[evel]s”, that will most likely occur when the ingress of tidal water volume is greater than the original impoundment effect. I say “most likely, because there are many other factors in play, not the least of which in the Gold Coast example is that the history of the Broadwater is hydrologically complex, with much other dredging, shifting of banks, diversions of terrestrial run-off, and moving and opening of channels. In the Nerang there’s also been a very complex history of alteration of the river banks’ flow resistance characteristics, and indeed of just about every other Gauckler–Manning parameter one cares to poke a stick at.

    And then there are the Little Nerang Dam and the damming of the Nerang at the Hinze Dam. The former was completed 50 years ago, and the latter 36 years ago, with an expansion 23 years ago and again last year…

    What do you think the progressive additions of these dams would do to the hydrology of the Nerang? Coincidentally their history starts with your hyped sea wall mark on Chevron Island. Have you done the work to establish that the reduced flow of the Nerang does not reduce the tidal heights reached in the river at the point of Chevron Island?

    And have you done yet the background checking to account for barometrtic pressure and ocean current inflences on highest astronomical tidal values?

    Hmmm?

    …you mean you still haven’t found out where the official mouth of the Nerang River is?

    Hydrology doesn’t give a hoot about official designations. All that matters is the combination of highly variable and impacted riverine hydrology interacting with the complex estuarine hydrology of the Broadwater, and with the oceanography and the meteorology of the region. To this end what is important is where the actual egresses to the ocean are, what channels occur between your much-vaunted sea wall and the aforementioned oceanic connections, the overall history, and how these interact with the highly altered river flow.

    Oh, and the fact that the neighbouring tidal gauges at Brisbane and the Gold Coast tell a different story to yours.

    And for what it’s worth, my comment that Chevron Island is “several kilometres” from the ocean still stands. Quite robustly I’d say, but do invite dissenting voices to come here and explain why they so do…

    Not only designed but designed, built and raced large and small yachts that have won international series and broken records doing so.

    Really?! So with all of this apparent expertise in draughts and sounding how did you manage to miss out on the lessons of complex riverine hydrology?

    If you’d be so gracious as to indicate which vessels you’ve designed/built, I’d be happy to get in touch with my Australian Maritime College contacts and sound them out about the capacity of the designers associated with the builds to comment on riverine hydrology and the oceanography of sea level rise.

    For that matter, one of my neighbours was a crewman on the Eye of the Wind for quite a few years. He’s a (very gruff and ‘salty’) skipper now on a scientific vessel and I had the good fortune to work with him for six months last year. He’s intimately familiar with most of the sailing who’s who on the Eastern Seaboard, so if you can give me a few hints about your nautical design history I could run it by him and get an expert assessment of your capacity to comment on sea level rise. I should warn you though – he doesn’t suffer fools, and he’s quite familiar (and in agreement) with the science of sea level rise – he’ll talk for ages about Lempriere’s mark at the Isle of the Dead…

    I wouldn’t expect someone of your limited vision and unlimited arrogance to understand the complexities of trying to design and build an extremely deep draughted vessel with a high self righting index that can also cope with shoal water so I won’t elaborate but you haven’t got the slightest idea of what I have accomplished in this regard yet you are quite happy to claim that I am out of my depth.

    Try me.

    You’d be amazed at the amount of material on hull design and stability in water that I’ve had to review since we last tried to get sense from you about your sea wall. One of the benefits of working at a university that has more than its fair share of world-class experts in an impressive diversity if disciplines, and also of living and playing on the water of what it perhaps the most maritime place in Australia…

    What a pompous bag of wind.

    And yet you pretend to know better than professional experts in hydrology and oceanography, even though you have no working understanding of these sciences.

    Oh, you meant me?! Sorry Mangled Drongo, but you’ll have to try harder than that to scratch my hide.

    As I have pointed out here, this benchmark of 49.9 years is but one of many around Moreton Bay over ~70 years of observations and they all agree that the highest tides are not as high as they were all that long ago.

    And as I have persistently tried to get through into your rusted head, without standardised documentation such claims are useless, and without an understanding of the complex regional riverine/estuarine/marine/atmospheric milieu, they are also absolutely irrelevant.

    Face it Drongo, you’ve spent too much time in the sun without a hat.

  83. #83 Bernard J.
    December 26, 2012

    The great Bernard thinks that SLs are reduced by simply dredging river mouths.

    Are you demented?!

    From one of my comments earlier today

    I did not say that dredging rivers near their mouths lowers sea level. I said that dredging near river mouths reduces the choke effect of the mouths, and lowers the mean local river level where such is still above mean sea level.

    Do you understand? I am speaking about river level. Tidal movement occurs in the lower reaches of rivers, but it superimposes on riverine hydrology so the existence of tides in a river does not inform about tidal patterns in open oceans. Especially when the river’s hydrology has been as profoundly altered as the Nerang’s has.

    How many more times must this be repeated before it sinks through the rust encrusting whatever it is that rattles inside your head?

  84. #84 Bernard J.
    December 26, 2012

    I note that whenever Spangled Drongo is confronted with the abject insupportability of his case, and whenever he is challenged to answer the raft of questions to him that have banked up over the last few years, he reverts to fizzing about straw men and (heaven forefend that I even mention it) ad hominem distraction.

    As Lotharsson beseeches – better trolls please.

  85. #85 Stu
    December 26, 2012

    Wait, what? Is the argument seriously “I build boats, so I know more about river hydrology”?

    Oh, and then calling others blowhards.

    Holy canoli, it is true: IT’S ALL PROJECTION.

  86. #86 chameleon
    December 26, 2012

    Lotharrson,
    It appears that you are only interested in arguing academic semantics.
    I learnt some time ago that is a pointless exercise.
    May I suggest you read YA Rob’s comment as well as David B’s?
    They were able to understand the actual point I was making without accusing me of saying something I didn’t say.
    I also note you have failed to recognise that Tim has essentially outlined the same issue despite his use of the word ‘unscrupulous’.
    I don’t have a problem with the use of stats BTW. They are very useful accross a wide spectrum.
    I am not however enamoured with an over reliance on their projective capabilities, especially by politicians.
    As I commented earlier, IMHO they are repeatedly somewhat misused by others (and perhaps I should have said NOT scientists) who claim they are like reliable fortune tellers and that they have demonstrated that the science is totally ‘settled’.
    So Lotharrson, I apologise, but I continue to remain highly amused by your prickly responses that seem to be more about a political stance than anything else.

  87. #87 spangled drongo
    December 26, 2012

    Bernard, are you waving now or only drowning?

    You are really struggling to extract complex correctness from simple and obvious error.

    Run a few levels over the lower reaches of the Nerang and the Broadwater and then get back to me. For example, check which way the river runs during flood peaks. [And spare us the lecture on hydrology]

    And then we can discuss my other benchmarks if you wish.

    So you have friends who have designed wave piercing cats?WOO! WOO!

    Tell me LB, when these vessels have neither the ability to self right nor travel in shallow water what makes you think they are qualified to pass knowledgable judgement on my boats?

    Or don’t you get that either?

    But possibly your salty mate from Eye of the Wind could advise on ultra-light yachts with hydraulic lift keel systems.

    But as they’re self-proven and successful systems that have many times been passed and approved by the American Bureau of Shipping, Lloyds etc, I won’t trouble him, thanks.

    At least my rusted head has had to sense to pay attention to SLs throughout my life.

    I recommend you start doing likewise. It will vastly improve your education.

  88. #88 Chris W
    December 26, 2012

    Yep, Bernard J has it.

    This lurker is now convinced Drongo probably is demented.

    I remember reading that old thread and all the thoughtful analysis, links to evidence, links to the science, suggestions for further study, and exhortations to look at the wider context then and now … have made no impression at all.

    Like some un-flushable turd, Drongo’s year’s old, evasive, one trick SLR drivel just keeps bobbing back up round the S-bend.

    Kinda sad.

  89. #89 spangled drongo
    December 26, 2012

    Chris W,

    Back to your old methods of dealing with the facts, I see.

    Haven’t learnt much since we last met have you?

    Is that because you’re dumb or still in denial?

  90. #90 bill
    December 27, 2012

    ^ This, boys and girls, we refer to as ‘projection’.

  91. #91 spangled drongo
    December 27, 2012

    I would suggest that anyone who could possibly spend “a few years” on an iron clunker like “Eye of the Wind” with twin Caterpillar diesels that would make her go upwind like a witch [koff], isn’t really into the who’s who and what’s what of sailing.

    But it gives a sharp signal of who, where and what you get your information from and how relevant it must be.

    But maybe he redeemed himself and put you straight on that Ross-Lempriere mark.

  92. #92 MikeH
    December 27, 2012

    This thread should be renamed “Christmas with the Kranks”

    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/04/30/unified-theory-of-the-crank/

  93. #93 Lotharsson
    December 27, 2012

    It appears that you are only interested in arguing academic semantics.

    Nope. More wrongness.

    These semantics are anything but academic especially to you – because you keep seeking to erase them and then argue from the resulting picture, presumably knowing (if only subconsciously) that you can’t argue from a picture that includes them.

    For example, here’s you doing it again:

    …IMHO [statistics] are repeatedly somewhat misused by others (and perhaps I should have said NOT scientists) who claim they are like reliable fortune tellers and that they have demonstrated that the science is totally ‘settled’.

    Remarkable!

    So: citations please.

    Citations that show that statistics when inappropriately used are generally abused in order to claim that the science is ‘settled’.

    What I (and many others) overwhelmingly observe in cases where statistics are abused to make climate science claims is the opposite. Abused statistics are generally used to claim that mainstream climate science is anywhere from sloppy – and wildly off base – to outright fraudulent – and wildly off base.

    If the bee in your bonnet is the inappropriate use of statistics to make claims about climate science and you have not observed this, then you’re either wilfully blind, statistically incompetent or haven’t looked around very much.

    I also note you have failed to recognise that Tim has essentially outlined the same issue despite his use of the word ‘unscrupulous’.

    That’s because, as I pointed out to you much earlier, the same issues do not arise in the scientific literature reporting the results of the climate models. I don’t recognise claims that cannot be substantiated. Once again you seek to erase an inconvenient fact so that you can argue from its absence. Sense a pattern here yet?

    I continue to remain highly amused by your prickly responses that seem to be more about a political stance than anything else.

    “Prickly” is in your mind.

    I remain amused by your responses that seek to claim a counter-fact by denying other facts and via repeated unsubstantiated assertion. Does that work well for you in other forums?

  94. #94 spangled drongo
    December 27, 2012

    “You’d be amazed at the amount of material on hull design and stability….”

    Yes LB, I would be and I’m still waiting to be.

  95. #95 chameleon
    December 27, 2012

    Chuckle :-)
    I rest my case Lotharsson.
    I truly have no wish to feed your negative perception of me. I wasn’t attempting to argue with you.
    I can only apologise that you find my style of commenting so irritating.
    We clearly have a different perspective about what is relevant and important.
    I do not deny what you have said (even though you clearly think I have).
    I have found the politics surrounding climate science rather counter productive and distasteful.
    People have become more interested in trading insults than anything I would consider practical, realistic or productive.
    I didn’t comment on much of what you have said because with
    it’s attendant personal insults I found it rather typically irrelevant

  96. #96 Lotharsson
    December 27, 2012

    I rest my case Lotharsson.

    I’m not sure you’ve made a case. You’ve made several claims, but I’m not sure you’ve substantiated any of them – and you’ve entirely ignored material provided by various commenters that strongly rebut many of those claims.

  97. #97 chameleon
    December 27, 2012

    :-)
    Chuckle.

  98. #98 spangled drongo
    December 27, 2012

    Lernard Bernard’s Freudian choice of multihulls as his admired vessel reflects the dichotomy of the weather as seen from the Alarmists v the Sceptics PsOV.

    The Alarmists would have it that the world’s weather, like a multihull, generally travells in a blissful state of Goldilocks comfort unles and until, hit by excessive [ACO2] force, reaches a tipping point from which it cannot recover and whammo! over it goes, down the gurgler. [positive feedback]

    Sceptics OTOH, see it as a ballasted monohull that rolls with the punches and even if knocked flat has auto- increasing reserves to always recover. [negative feedback]

    Eventually it will dawn on the alarmists that maybe this is how we have survived this long.

    That is, if they don’t scuttle the ship in the meantime.

  99. #99 bill
    December 27, 2012

    So, let me get this straight. In the world according to Popeye – or the nautical Forrest Gump, with life like a marina of dinghies, if you will – the planet’s climate system is somehow designed to move back to the very equilibrium state that just happens to be most beneficial for us?

    Yeah, right. Read any paleohistory there? Hate to break the bad news to you, but the continuing survival – let alone the comfort – of you, me, Polar Bears, the Indian Tiger, and the Northern Atlantic Right Whale is a matter of complete indifference to Mother Earth, I’m afraid.

    So what’s your excuse – insouciance, arrogance, imbecility, or an abiding sense that The Lord wouldn’t do it to you? A combination of the above, perhaps?

  100. #100 spangled drongo
    December 27, 2012

    Bill, is that the Thickhead or Little Cuckoo talking?

    Hellooo! Are you there bill?

Current ye@r *