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 Wow
    December 29, 2012

    “How can you call this stuff data?”

    Because that is what it is?

    PS What freezing with a vengeance?

  2. #2 Wow
    December 29, 2012

    “SD’s claimed benchmark is not on a river far inland,”

    Walk seven miles.

    It’s on a river.

  3. #3 spangled drongo
    December 29, 2012

    Here’s a bit more of what your man had to say which your articles didn’t mention. Seems like he isn’t too sure about anything:

    “Such rates of Greenland ice loss were barely larger than the margin of error in their readings, making it difficult to discern any difference between a supposed loss curve on a graph from a straight line. At the current rate, it will cause sea levels to rise about 2.4 inches over the next century. And according to the authors: “At current melt rates, the Greenland ice sheet would take about 13,000 years to melt completely.”

    Tell me honestly Lotharsson, do you believe this stuff?

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    December 29, 2012

    When a multihull starts to incline beyond an angle where everything on board tends to fall to the low side and the wind gets under the wings, forces that will make it capsize increase and stability reduces. The centre of gravity moves even further outboard of the centre of buoyancy and positive feedback is happening. The multihull is now beyond saving and will overturn.

    Yep, that’s a circumstance where there is a feed back. Clever old man. Of course, if a multihull is that unstable in the first place it would be a bit silly to have it so poorly prepared for racing or other severe conditions.

    Two points though…

    1) You are still describing a situation that is analogous to climate change, and you have not been able to provide substantiation that your claim that climate processes are inherently negatively fed-back.

    2) My reference to wave-piercing multihull designs at the Australian Maritime College relates to commercial vessels. The AMC bit should have been a bit of a clue. In such contexts the whole issue of stability (especially in wind) is secondary to other considerations, and in the end is a distraction from the fact that all I was trying to elicit from you was a way to check your understanding of riverine hydrology/hydrography. You’ve almost always employed distraction as a means to avoid my questions, and I would remind you that you have many hanging from the posts of February 2012, including why you think that it is legitimate to apply a linear regression to an oscillating phneomenon.

    But if you have friends who have intelligent, long term observations of regular SLR from king tides, please supply details similar to mine; time, place, levels etc.

    Detailed anecdotes ARE data. And here’s me thinking I am dealing with a scientist.

    Erm, so where exactly are your details? You know, things like dates, times, wind direction and speed, barometric pressure, catchment flow, comparison with engineering history and bar movements, regional oceanic current trends.

    Heck, you haven’t yet even provided any dates and levels for king tides at your river wall…

    In case you hadn’t noticed BJ, we aren’t talking about SURGES.

    Huh? 22 February 2010:

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

    Remeber that Drongo? Your words, not mine.

    Your beloved Church and White won’t even admit that the Ross-Lempriere mark shows a SL fall of around 30 cms.

    A “fall of around 30 cms [sic]“?

    References?

    As I have said before, when SL is measured from an orbiting spacecraft that cannot fly parallel to our pear-shaped-geoid-with-flat-spots and the sea surface has possibly one hundred thousand different levels in any one day if you are using 0.1 mm increments, which they are, which are then fed into supercomputers with their usual assumptions and adjustments, to think that is empirical measurement you have to have rocks in your head.

    1) It does matter if satellites don’t move parallel to the Earth’s surface.

    2) A hundred thousand different levels, or a hundred million, there’s a fancy thing called statistics that takes care of that.

    3) Those “assumptions and adjustments” have shown a rise in sea level – even if they were inaccurate, it would be a consistent bias which would show no rise over time. But, strangely enough, there’s a rise…

    4) The thing is that satellite measurement agrees with independent “empirical measurement”. You know, those things called tide gauges which are littered across the planet’s coasts…

    5) “…rocks in your head”. I prefer to think of it as scientific understanding. Something that you have, time and again, demonstrated is alien to what passes as your take on complex matters.

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    December 29, 2012

    1) It doesn’t matter if satellites don’t move parallel to the Earth’s surface.

  6. #6 spangled drongo
    December 29, 2012

    “Walk seven miles.”

    Not even BJ is as dumb as you Wow. He even agrees that it is ONE mile from the official river mouth at the Broadwater.

    You don’t pay attention, do you?

    “Because that is what it is?”

    When you feed it through multi-processes and still can’t tell the signal from the noise, that’s terrific data.

    “PS What freezing with a vengeance?”

    This is:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/snowNESDISnh.gif

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    December 29, 2012

    It seems that when you are dancing with GRACE you can choose your own tune.

    Nope.

    You have to justify your tune. That’s what peer review is all about.

    And as the other articles point out what you allege is “choosing their own tune” doesn’t do much more than reconfirm earlier results and provide additional insight into regional patterns. In other words, the “new tune” is the same tune in higher fidelity.

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    December 29, 2012

    Here’s a bit more of what your man had to say which your articles didn’t mention

    Wrong again, IIRC. Some of the articles mentioned precisely those figures and pointed out that they were essentially the same as the earlier GRACE figures.

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    December 29, 2012

    Not even BJ is as dumb as you Wow. He even agrees that it is ONE mile from the official river mouth at the Broadwater.

    And you out-dumb everyone else here by claiming that the official river mouth is what matters with respect to sea level rise.

  10. #10 Wow
    December 29, 2012

    And the official mouth of the river is where the ocean is???

    You need to go and do some physical geography lessons.

  11. #11 Lotharsson
    December 29, 2012

    So “freezing with a vengeances” means winter snow cover?

    That’s almost as dumb as alleging the sea takes note of “the official river mouth” when it’s rising. Not only is snow expected in winter, and not only is that a snapshot rather than a trend analysis, but worse still snow cover is not a good indicator of future ice loss trends if only because snow cover measures area without much regard for thickness which is far more of a factor for the ice trends.

    It’s amazing how gullible you are.

  12. #12 Wow
    December 29, 2012

    Hang on, though, where’s the snow cover in Australia?

    Glittery danglers isn’t using a NON GLOBAL measure to determine GLOBAL TRENDS is it?

    Surely it can’t be THAT stupid?

    (in case deniers don’t get it: that was irony)

  13. #13 Bernard J.
    December 29, 2012

    This was supposed to have been posted a couple of hours ago, but my laptop overheated. Others have since followed up, but nevertheless…

    Not even BJ is as dumb as you Wow. He even agrees that it is ONE mile from the official river mouth at the Broadwater.

    Countering your distraction yet again, the nearest entrance to the open ocean is 7 kilometres away. The “official river mouth” is a hair under 2 kilometres away.

    Chevron Island is in a riverine environment, and not in a marine one.

    Sea level is not measured (by professionals) in a river, especially one with a history of highly modified hydrology.

  14. #14 Bolt for PM
    December 29, 2012

    See! You guys must have amazing amounts of free time. I had a spare hour or so today and posted a couple of comments, since then I’ve done some yardwork and been out for dinner and yet you are all still at it. What gives? Do you not have anything else to do? :)

    I really can’t put in the time to follow the various arguments but here’s a couple of off the cuff thoughts. Now remember, I have a very basic high school education which is largely forgotten, so using words like regression or second differential will cut no ice with me, you might as well have suggested I fly to the moon. That’s not meant to be a smart arse reply, I’m just noting I’m well out of my depth in that sort of discussion. But it doesn’t mean I can’t see where an argument is going.

    Lotharsson, you observe that “Several recent 20-yr trend rates have been the highest set on record (Fig 4 here), and (very roughly eyeball estimate only) about 1mm per year higher than the average of 20-year trends centered on 1940-1990, as you were asking.”

    Now, I am not sure exactly what this graph is portraying, but the obvious question is, why 20 years? Earlier you were quite dismissive of short term trends as being less than useful, yet here they are of value? Is anyone here able to whip up some graphs of this particular approach and show us how the trend rates look for say 10 year, 20 year, 30 year and 50 year windows? I’m not disagreeing with the claim, but the 20 year window is curious. How about 20 year windows starting at 1930? Just to see if those trends are actually there and not due to some cherry picking start dates and periods.

    BJ, you state that 2-3mm of SLR per year is unlikely to have appreciable effects in the short term generally tho it may in extreme events. So, how long is ‘long term’? There have been suggestions we are thinking about a century hence, so maybe 100 years is a good number?

    Well, we’ve already had 140 years of SLR according to the graph Lotharsson linked to, which encompasses a substantial change in the rate of that rise. And we’ve had some 200mm overall in that time (rough estimate from that graph).

    As you suggest the impact of SLR is more likely in the longer term, or by the agency of extreme events, shouldn’t that 140 years of SLR provide a useful test for your claim? Imagine if someone had shown that graph in 1870, wouldn’t that have sounded alarm bells?

    But… what actually happened?

    I am not aware of any physical real world data to support the claim. What effects has 140 years of SLR spanning 1870 to 2010 had on the Australian coastline, even disregarding SD’s now infamous benchmark? What impact have extreme conditions had in that time? If you can point to such data, and that data shows a trend of increasingly noticeable effects due to SLR, then you might have a case.

    You then say “there doesn’t need to be a large acceleration in the current rate of sea level rise for serious destruction of much coastal infrastructure within a century or so, as that rate is already above the Holocene mean.” I agree that if the current steady rate of SLR continues, at some future point we can expect some impact. That is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying. My point is that so far, we’ve not seen any serious impact on coastal infrastructure and yet we have experienced a considerable above ‘normal’ acceleration already.

    Further, most of the claims for an acceleration depend on a host of variables that you are just certain will increase that rate. But there is as yet no evidence for that in terms of actual effects. The trend is relatively stable at present. And at 3mm/yr for the next 100 years, we will see 30cm of rise, or about 12″. One foot. I’m not expecting serious destruction from that, especially given there is a century of adaptation possible.

    You also said “Calculate a second differential for the first graph. That’s the whole bloody point.” Fair enough, you must think that means something. So explain it. As far as I can see from eyeballing it, it’s pretty flat after 1930.

    You further complain “You’re the one saying that there’s no acceleration, so you should be the one answering all of your questions. Or are you making claims about ‘acceleration’ without having actually done any work to support them?” Say what? The OP simply showed some graphs and made some claims. I am saying that as far as I can see they don’t prove what is claimed. The OP didn’t include a caveat that I’d need to go away and calculate a “second differential” to get it.

  15. #15 Bernard J.
    December 29, 2012

    And Drongo, if you’re going to bounce over to Moreton Bay and your other “detailed anecdotes”, it would help if you actually detailed all parametres relevant to those sites, otherwise they are unsubstantiated heresay completely uninformed by relevant science.

  16. #16 Bernard J.
    December 29, 2012

    I really can’t put in the time to follow the various arguments but here’s a couple of off the cuff thoughts. Now remember, I have a very basic high school education which is largely forgotten, so using words like regression or second differential will cut no ice with me, you might as well have suggested I fly to the moon. That’s not meant to be a smart arse reply, I’m just noting I’m well out of my depth in that sort of discussion. But it doesn’t mean I can’t see where an argument is going.

    Shorter Blot:

    I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I know what I’m talking about.

    Moving on:

    My point is that so far, we’ve not seen any serious impact on coastal infrastructure and yet we have experienced a considerable above ‘normal’ acceleration already.

    You’re referring to a system that is effectively ‘starting’ from a ‘standing start’. It takes time to move from the equlibrium position, and by extension into territory where negative impacts progressively manifest. But any acceleration – whether high, low or normal – will displace the new level from the previous equilibrium. If it happens faster than humans are able to adapt, then there is negative impact (to say nothing of the non-human biosphere…).

    So, how quickly do you think that the city of New York can be moved from its current location? Or Shanghai? Or Bangladesh? Or the Netherlands? Or low-lying ocean islands, or indeed any of the countless millions of homes and communities that line the coasts of continents around the planet?

    How quickly can the associated coastal ecosystems be relocated?

    At what cost will all this need to be done?

    Who pays?

    Who compensates?

    Who much can we melt the planet’s ice over time without incalculable moral culpability?

    Is it OK to warm the planet by 3-6 degrees Celsius (or more), and lock in the melting of Greenland and the Antarctic over several millenia, effectively raising the sea level another 7-67 metres, depending on the final maximum temperature increase?

    Further, most of the claims for an acceleration depend on a host of variables that you are just certain will increase that rate. But there is as yet no evidence for that in terms of actual effects. The trend is relatively stable at present. And at 3mm/yr for the next 100 years, we will see 30cm of rise, or about 12″. One foot. I’m not expecting serious destruction from that, especially given there is a century of adaptation possible.

    You’ve already admitted that you don’t understand the science, so why do you assume that all that will happen over the coming century is that the water will rise by a foot? Why do you persist in ignoring the science that shows that the rise by the end of the century will be at least twice as much, and quite possibly at least four times as much, as the current rate would produce? And why do you ignore the synergies with the increased frequency of extreme weather events, increased difficulty in responding due to decreasing accessibility of oil, and increased degradation of natural buffering systems?

    You also said “Calculate a second differential for the first graph. That’s the whole bloody point.” Fair enough, you must think that means something. So explain it. As far as I can see from eyeballing it, it’s pretty flat after 1930.

    That’s the danger of using an eyechrometre. And of engaging in a subject in which you are clueless.

    If you need it explained to you, I suggested that you determine the acceleration over time using the data depicted by the graph. Smoothing would be advisable, to reduce noise, and the end result would indicate whether there is a change in the rate of sea level rise, or whether the rate is ‘just’ relatively constant.

    A clue though… physical processes such as this are very usually described by a sigmoid function – overwhelmingly so. This should give you an idea of what to expect from your homework. Note though that there is little difference in the final result… any rate of sea level rise over zero results in a rise, whether or not there is an acceleration in that rate.

    I’m not going to do your work for you. My pedagogical approach is to encourage the learner to answer his/her own questions by doing the reading and the work as much as is possible. This fosters an appreciation for the backgroundknowledge involved, helps to promote understanding that ‘sticks’, helps to prepare a person for future self-directed learning (although that can often never be achieved), and appropriately places the onus of responsibility on the one who demands the answers.

    And if you need advice:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/sea-level-rise-faster-than-projected/

  17. #17 Lotharsson
    December 29, 2012

    > Now, I am not sure exactly what this graph is portraying, but the obvious question is, why 20 years?

    It’s a good question! You may have to read the underlying paper to find out. Usually journal articles will choose a period and justify it – e.g. by testing for statistical signficance on the data set they are analysing. In many (but not all) climatic data sets 17+ years will prove long enough but sometimes even longer is needed. They might also have chosen 20 years because this is long enough – in combination with the “one sigma error” they also plot – to be confident the trend estimate is reasonably good (e.g. not overly influenced by noise), but short enough to show changes in trend over time.

    > How about 20 year windows starting at 1930?

    Those are already on the graph in Figure 4. The data point at “1930” (for example) is the rate of the 20 year trend centered on 1930 (i.e. 1920-1940), so you’re looking for the “1940” point on the curve if you want to see the trend calculated from the 20 year window starting at 1930. Shift along one year on the curve for the window starting at 1931, and repeat.

    > My point is that so far, we’ve not seen any serious impact on coastal infrastructure and yet we have experienced a considerable above ‘normal’ acceleration already.

    It’s not the acceleration that hurts, but whether the level crosses a threshold for unwelcome impact.

    If I drive my car into a brick wall at 40 km/h I may cause myself some short term pain (and a large repair bill). If I drive it into the same wall at 60 km/h I may do myself some longer term damage. At 80 km/h I may risk serious and permanent disability. The impacts are clearly non-linear. Going twice as fast is much more than twice as bad…going twice as fast again is much more than twice as bad again.

    Sea level rise is likely to have similar impact. Once a particular environment experiences a certain level the impacts will rapidly become much harder/more expensive to deal with. Low-lying environments of high economic value will tend to be early sufferers.

  18. #18 Mike G
    December 29, 2012

    That is about as smart as the argument that local SLs can fall over ~70 years but world wide they can acceleratingly rise to alarming heights.

    And once again you betray your lack of even a basic understanding of the subject of sea level.
    For one, your mark on the wall is measuring relative sealevel which is a combination of he change in elevation of he land as well as a change in the level of the water. If you used the same method in New York where the land is rising due to isostatic rebound it would appear that he rate of sea level rise is much less than the global value. Conversely, if you used this method in New Orleans it would appear that he sea was rising much faster because the land is subsiding. In order for your mark to be of any real use in measuring the rate of sea level rise alone you would need to know how much the elevation of the shore itself has changed and correct for that effect. As others have pointed out multiple times to you as well, using a mark on a riverine system that has been dredged or dammed will also have significant impacts on the water level, even if for rhe sake of argument you really were only 1 km from open ocean.

    If you really were on the open ocean though, the surface is still not flat, even on a glassy calm day. Currents create persistent surface features (hills and valleys for lack of a more descriptive term) that can be up to a meter high. Long-term changes in the surface pressures and thermohaline circulations that drive these currents can shift the locations or alter the heights of these surface features. If your tide guage is on a coast near one of these hills and the current creating the hill weakens, the local sea level will drop while global sea level remains unchanged.

  19. #19 Lionel A
    December 29, 2012

    BJ:

    …physical processes such as this are very usually described by a sigmoid…

    Oh! Gee! Now you have wound up ‘Bolt through the neck’ yet again.

  20. #20 Wow
    December 29, 2012

    He probably thinks it’s a misspelling of sigmund freud…

  21. #21 spangled drongo
    December 29, 2012

    Lothe, learn to read. That’s ICE.

    Where do you Doltoids think the mouth of the Brisbane R is?

    Jumpinpin? South Passage? Caloundra?

    More confirmation of accelerating [koff] SLR. Another dance with GRACE:

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/recent-contributions-glaciers-and-ice-caps-sea-level-rise

    BJ, you are the distraction specialist. Just a pity yours always seem to bite you on the bum.

    And don’t tell me you haven’t studied the Ross-Lempriere controversy:

    http://www.john-daly.com/ges/appendix.htm

    And I have never used surges to claim SLR. Now you are plain telling porkies. Desperate stuff.

    “It doesn’t matter if satellites don’t move parallel to the Earth’s surface.”
    If you’re so easily duped as to believe remote systems fed through multiple corrections and assumptions can give a tiny signal that is distinct from noise then you haven’t got a sceptical scientist’s bone in your body.

    But [to coin one of your favourite expressions] we already knew that, didn’t we?

  22. #22 Wow
    December 29, 2012

    “That’s ICE.”

    What’s ice?

    The river you’re sitting by?

    Oh and the mouth of the river isn’t where you are. Sorry. Please check up on your local adult education centre and ask if they do physical geography.

  23. #23 spangled drongo
    December 29, 2012

    Mike G, you must be another one of those amazing people who can push his bathwater up one end while he dries himself.

    70 years, Mike, 70 years! If local SLs haven’t risen but fallen somewhat in that time, you can sleep peacefully.

    Also, read that link of mine above re the latest CU assessment. They are coming down all the time.

    Could the real world be sinking in?

    Could they finally be looking out the window as they type their assumptions into the machine?

    Get with it, boy.

  24. #24 spangled drongo
    December 29, 2012

    Wow, I try not to spell it out for you Doltoids. I like to give you the BotD for som intelligenge.

    For you? I’ll have to make an exception.

  25. #25 Bolt for PM
    December 29, 2012

    Sigmund Freud? I didn’t see him in the comments list. He’s probably just another warmist.

    Bernard J, I am arguing that the graphs shown don’t support the conclusions drawn, and suggesting that real world effects don’t point to either a significant SLR or any impacts from same over 140 years. I’ve challenged you all to provide some actual real world evidence for anything happening.

    So far, nothing.

    This blog post began with the statement “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.” and expands with “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.”

    What I see is SLR accelerating early in the 20th Century, and returning to a relatively stable linear increase ever since. This is backed up by the second sentence above. So, no evidence of an increasing acceleration. And no real world effects to speak of.

    You say “That’s the danger of using an eyechrometre.” I say that using an eyechrometer is EXACTLY what the OP asked me to do. And so far, you’ve not convinced me that those graphs illustrate an increasing rate of SLR.

    Lotharsson, this sounds like a copout and it probably is really. If I find the time, I’ll try to look at that trend graph a bit more closely and see if I can wrap my head round it. But all you’ve really said is that they chose the 20 year window for a reason. I agree, but without some useful crosschecks I am not convinced it hasn’t been done to exaggerate the effect.

    Mike G, more arm waving. Perhaps what you say of New York and New orleans is true. Do you have some physical evidence from those coastlines of similar real world benchmarks as Spangled Drongo has produced? Something that shows how these varying effects have played out physically?

    As for SD’s ‘riverine’ system, well, I reckon that’s a bit of a furphy. Where SD’d benchmark is, it is clearly affected by tides so sea level does play some part in determining tide heights. What is being argued is that somehow, all of those various things like damming and dredging have rather nicely offset SLR over 70 years to prevent an observable change. That’s rather coincidental. Given it matches my own totally anecdotal non-scientific observations and everyone else’s lack of physical evidence, I’m gonna go with Occam’s Razor. SLR is not producing any noticeable real world effect on the Australian coastline.

  26. #26 chameleon
    December 29, 2012

    Bolt for PM,
    I would say good questionS (as in plural) not just one.
    I also note that there are no straight answers just speculation about ‘mights’ and analogies.
    Of course coastal infrastructure is vulnerable to the vagaries of the ocean. That is and always has been the case.
    Splitting hairs about the location of tide gauges is not proving anything useful or practical.
    No one disagrees that SL is in constant flux.
    The real question is what have we learned from this obvious fact and how should we continue to adapt?
    Instead here we have people arguing over the veracity of modelling and claiming they can predict dire consequences from same.
    I know it will create further name calling, but Bolt’s question is highly valid.
    Where are the noticeable negative impacts and what is being done to sensibly and practically mitigate those impacts?
    Hand wringing over statistics is not proving to be productive behaviour.
    They’re useful of course but how have they proved to be prophetic and a reliable basis to inform sensible policy?

  27. #27 bill
    December 29, 2012

    That is about as smart as the argument that local SLs can fall over ~70 years but world wide they can acceleratingly rise to alarming heights.

    And the globe cannot be warming if temperatures have declined in Folsom, New Mexico. Seriously, this is as embarrassing a public declaration of ignorance as it’s possible to make. My house cannot be on fire if my bathroom is not burning?

    Better do a statistics course along with the geography.

  28. #28 bill
    December 29, 2012

    I’m sure this has been pointed out to you, but the world is actually significantly more complicated than your obtuse suburban talk-back radio “it’s obvious” mentality allows.

    This is why we developed a thing called ‘science’, in order to overcome the parochial, anecdotal, incidental, imbecilic… and mendacious.

  29. #29 Mike G
    Ft. Lauderdale
    December 29, 2012

    My point is that so far, we’ve not seen any serious impact on coastal infrastructure and yet we have experienced a considerable above ‘normal’ acceleration already.

    Once again, Australia is not the world. If you look at more vulnerable areas of the world, like my neck of the woods in South Florida where we have 3+ million people living within 2m of sealevel we are already experiencing significant impacts.
    We’ve experienced roughly 8 inches of SLR over the past century (4 inches in the past 30). As a result we have had to spend millions of dollars plugging canals built around the turn of the century because they are now causing saltwater intrusion into the freshwater wetlands. We have also had to abandon wells due to saltwater intrusion as the result of SLR and increased freshwater demand from the aquifer.
    In Miami Beach every year during the perigean spring tides saltwater percolates up through the limestone and storm drains to flood the streets. Cars are flooded out and businesses are forced to barracade their doors with sandbags. Many streets are impassible. Similar events occur to the north in Ft. Lauderdale as well. And extra 8 inches of water in the streets is the difference in cars being a total loss or just having rusty brake rotors.
    This year Sandy passed several hundred miles to the east of us right as the spring tides were occuring, giving us almost an extra foot of surge. As a result many bulkheads around Biscayne Bay were overtopped and failed. Most of these walls are built about 18 inches higher than the mean high water line with some walls dating to the mid 1920s or ealy 1930s so that extra 8 inches contributed by SLR made the difference between walls that would have had 6 inches of buffer even during a storm with a 1 foot surge at high tide and walls that were overtopped. Here in Ft. Lauderdale we lost a large section of our beachfront highway, A1A, and will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild it and the collapsed seawall as a result.

  30. #30 Wow
    December 29, 2012

    current troll collective: when will you actually find the wherewithal to post some comment with some actual substance in it?

  31. #31 Wow
    December 29, 2012

    “My point is that so far, we’ve not seen any serious impact on coastal infrastructure”

    One reason for that is that you’re sitting inland and looking at the river banks and thinking “This looks like the ocean”.

    PS Sandy.

  32. #32 Mike G
    December 29, 2012

    Mike G, more arm waving. Perhaps what you say of New York and New orleans is true. Do you have some physical evidence from those coastlines of similar real world benchmarks as Spangled Drongo has produced? Something that shows how these varying effects have played out physically?

    Yes. All tide gauges measure relative sea level just like SD’s mark on the wall. They all have to be corrected for changes in the elevation of the land by comparing to a common benchmark. See http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

  33. #33 Wow
    December 29, 2012

    ‘sfunny how the deniers are all “Oh, you see warming because you aren’t correcting for the UHI” but if they think they have an answer they like, they won’t think “Have I corrected for confounding factors”.

    It’s why they are not doing science since they would need to be SKEPTICAL of their result and check to see if they are seeing something that is merely a phantom of their hope.

  34. #34 chameleon
    December 30, 2012

    Bill & Wow,
    I probably shouldn’t bother with this but I can’t resist:
    ‘but the world is actually significantly more complicated than your obtuse suburban talk-back radio “it’s obvious” mentality allows.’
    &
    ‘when will you actually find the wherewithal to post some comment with some actual substance in it?’
    &
    PS Sandy.
    You truly are champions at missing the point entirely.
    In the wierdest and most furious manner you appear to have tacitly agreed with spangled and bolt.
    And Wow, I really probably shouldn’t wind you up but your rebuttal re the AUSTRALIAN focus from my posted links was truly hilarious.
    Yes Wow, there was an Australian link but there were also links from accross the other side of the world and they were not parochially focused on Australia as you claimed…in fact only the one you highlighted was Australian focused.
    Much of the information came from here:
    http://www.climate4you.com/
    and from this individual:
    http://www.climate4you.com/Text/BIBLIOGRAPHY%20OLE%20HUMLUM.pdf
    I see that Lotharsson was the only one who at least took the time to read it.
    Unfortunately (IMHO) Lotharsson was way more interested in nit picking out what he thought was wrong with it and making an attempt at ‘shooting the messenger’, rather than actually dealing with the message.
    The question related to the actual data sets and methodology Lotharsson.
    I understand that you see yourself as some type of master of blog tactics and that you have set yourself up as some type of judge and jury about which ‘sources’ you think are the only valid ones.
    However,
    Looking at Humlum’s pedigree, I can’t see anything basically wrong with his credentials.
    Neither can I see anything sinister about the very clearly stated methodology.
    He is essentially tracking real time data (from the same sources as most others use) and plotting them against the politically accepted extrapolated models that claim an alarming ‘trend’ that correlates directly with increases in ACO2.
    He has also focused on SL and as far as I can see his methodology is clearly outlined so he hasn’t attempted to do anything sinister and/or unscrupulous.
    He is also not concluding that SL is decelerating. He rather concludes that the theorised and previously modelled trends have decelerated or perhaps are not playing out in emerging updated data sets.
    He does clearly state there is an observed SLR, just not as alarming as previously hypothesised.
    I did not claim I necessarily agreed or disagreed with any of this information.
    My point was that this information is being statistically represented and that results and conclusions can alter depending on even simple things like changing datum start/end points.
    Tim at the start of this post and then later Bolt also highlighted this fact.
    Tim chose to call it ‘unscrupulous’ but I find that difficult to understand because the methodology was clearly outlined.
    I find all the screeching about ‘cherry picking’ from both ‘sides’ of this argument rather amusing.
    By their very nature, projective models need to pick snapshots in time and need to make assumptions about the strength of different variables and their influences on each other.
    In fact, the whole point of them (IMHO) is to help us see what could potentially happen if we switch certain variables on and off in the projective models.
    By the sheer number of them with many different results and conclusions, I find it hard to see why anyone would try to claim that only ONE source can possibly be correct and/or valid.
    My question to you Lotharsson:
    Can you please explain how this work is any less valid than the work you deem is superior?
    I will grant that Humlum has chosen to use a less complicated approach, but I fail to see where it is statistically invalid.
    I will also concede that extrapolating SL out to the end of the century on a short data set probably doesn’t prove or disprove anything much at all.
    However, this is not the only place we have seen this done I would suggest.
    Some of the evidence you have posted has done something remarkably similar (not necessarily exactly the same) and IMHO has neither conclusively proved or disproved anything much in relation to ACO2 and SLR either.

  35. #35 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    “And the globe cannot be warming if temperatures have declined in Folsom, New Mexico.”

    How old are you bill? How long have you been experiencing temperature?

    Ever noticed how SLs are roughly the same all over the world?

    But temperatures vary by more than 100c world wide, every day?

    But thanks bill, you’ve highlighted my point.

  36. #36 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    Bernard,

    All we need from your mates’ recorded history of SLR observations is: where they are, over what period and how much higher. Naturally,people won’t have perfectly calibrated benchmarks but many councils required certain infrastructure like stormwater pipe outlets, sea walls etc to be built to the king tide datum of the day and it was common sense for anyone to build infrastructure to that datum even if council approval was not required so it is not all that difficult to observe if new king tides are exceeding the old levels or vice versa over a long period of time.

    And while you’re at it Bernie, what about your own obs?

    You’re not gonna tell me you didn’t have the presence of mind or the interest to make any?

  37. #37 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    Forgive me for making assumptions Bernie but you, being decended from a long line of proud polder preservers whose lives have historically depended on them sticking their collective hand in it, have really let the side down by taking your eye off the ball, so to speak.

    Do you really NOT have any long term SL obs??

  38. #38 Mike G
    December 30, 2012

    Ever noticed how SLs are roughly the same all over the world?
    No. That would be a strange thing to notice given that mean sea level differs by about 2m around the world. Again, your ignorance is showing.

  39. #39 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    ” mean sea level differs by about 2m around the world.”

    Differs all of 2m hey Mike?

    Is that with or without tides?

    So Mikelove, how would that convert to an average percentage compared with temperature?

    Wow, learn some facts for once in your life:

    “North America’s northeastern coast has been battered by hurricanes and other major storms throughout history. A 1775 hurricane killed 4,000 people in Newfoundland; an 1873 monster left 600 dead in Nova Scotia; others pummeled Canada’s Maritime Provinces in 1866, 1886, 1893, 1939, 1959, 1963 and 2003.

    Manhattan got pounded in 1667 and by the Great Storm of 1693. They were followed by more behemoths in 1788, 1821, 1893, 1944, 1954 and 1992. Other “confluences of severe weather events” brought killer storms like the four-day Great Blizzard of 1888. The 1893 storm largely eradicated Hog Island, and the 1938 “Long Island Express” hit LI as a category 3 hurricane with wind gusts up to 180 mph.

    Experts say such winds today would rip windows from skyscrapers and cause a deadly blizzard of flying glass, masonry, chairs, desks and other debris from high-rise offices and apartments. People would seek safety in subway tunnels, where they would drown as the tunnels flood.

    Sandy was merely the latest “confluence” (tropical storm, northeaster and full-moon high tide) to blast the New York-New Jersey area. It was never a matter of if, but only of when, such a storm would hit.”

  40. #40 Lotharsson
    December 30, 2012

    Lothe, learn to read. That’s ICE.

    You learn to write. The TITLE of the graph is “Snow Cover Analysis” and the link name begins with “snow”. Since you deigned to provide the link on its own I presumed that its self-confessed subject was what you wanted to point out. (Silly of me, I know.)

    So, now we know that you consider “freezing with a vengeance” to mean first year surface ice? That’s only marginally less silly than considering it to be “snow cover”. Most first year ice doesn’t survive the melt season in most years – just like most snow cover doesn’t. Why do you think we look at trends and not snapshots?

  41. #41 bill
    December 30, 2012

    SLs are not roughly the same all over the world, you fool. Like so many of your suburban neighbours you’re confusing the crude, truncated ‘obvious’ world that lives in your head with the rather more difficult and interesting beast that actually exists outside it.

    Clearly, in a very real sense, you’ve never had much engagement with the latter.

    And you’re far too arrogant – and, underneath, far too insecure – to acknowledge this. Hence; Denial.

    And, chameleon, you’re just a bore. Which makes Spangly a tidal bore, I suppose.

  42. #42 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012
  43. #43 Lotharsson
    December 30, 2012

    this sounds like a copout and it probably is really.

    Is this an argument from personal ignorance that I see?

    You’ve asked a good question, but other people know the answer. If you actually care rather than are using it to posture you’ll do the homework to find out. I’ve given you a bunch of clues of the sort of thing you should be looking for.

    Something that shows how these varying effects have played out physically?

    You’re impressively determined to drive forwards by looking in the rear view mirror. Ever wondered why that is?

  44. #44 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    You only ever read the titles Lothe?

    That explains a lot.

    Bill, show us your data. Not you bile.

    You’re not giving Topex/Poseidon/Jason any chance.

  45. #45 bill
    December 30, 2012

    And now any pretence has dropped away and Spangly is just spewing Watts-chum. Are you really so pathetic that you’re going to try to cling to the nonsensical cosmic ray hypothesis? Or ‘it’s the sun’? Wrong. Again.

    Or was this a disarmingly honest reference to your own weak intellect, in common with the rest of the dupes at WUWT, perhaps?

  46. #46 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    “Weak minds think alike. What does that remind you of?”

    Bill, my best friend, and so reliable.

  47. #47 bill
    December 30, 2012

    Spangly, you seem to be one of those remarkable ageing curmudgeons who repeatedly rejects all evidence provided to him until it becomes clear that the only response he will accept as proper is simply his own nonsensical beliefs mirrored back to him.

    Dana will eat Rawls alive. I look forward to it. Not in your mind, of course, but, as we’ve already established, there isn’t much link between your mind and external reality.

  48. #48 chameleon
    December 30, 2012

    I am not a great fan of wuwt because it too goes overboard on accusations and emotive language as many of the commenters here. It is just from a different perspective.
    However, that paricular link does demonstrate the shortcomings of a blind reliance on statistical representations of something as variable as climate.
    To be so certain that one interpretation is the only possibly correct interpretation and that all policy must be based on that one interpretation has no basis in any historical precedent.
    It’s OK to be certain that particular interpretation shows that particular result but as Bolt has stated, you would also need real world significant evidence to validate that hypothesis.

  49. #49 bill
    December 30, 2012

    Chameleon now playing ‘the lone voice of disinterested reason above the fray’ card. Yawn. Are you determined to inhabit every trolling cliche, or is your entity actually some tag-teaming sock-puppet collective?

  50. #50 Lotharsson
    December 30, 2012

    In the wierdest and most furious manner you appear to have tacitly agreed with spangled and bolt.

    You keep telling people who are clearly disagreeing that they agree.

    Odd.

    Unfortunately (IMHO) Lotharsson was way more interested in nit picking out what he thought was wrong with it and making an attempt at ‘shooting the messenger’, rather than actually dealing with the message.

    ROFL! What a spectacularly idiotic claim!

    If the messenger is biased or promoting outright falsehoods, then dealing with the message necessitates pointing that out – and correcting for its flaws! It most certainly doesn’t mean “gullibly swallow it and treat it as good information” – well, not to most of us, anyway.

    And you, on the other hand, are not dealing with the message provided by all of the evidence given to you on these threads. Heck, you haven’t dealt with the message that “climate4you” is more interested in misleading its readers by cherrypicking and unsubstantiated editorialising than in giving them the full picture.

    Ever wondered why you’re projecting that tactic on to other people?

    Speaking of failing to deal with the message:

    Neither can I see anything sinister about the very clearly stated methodology.

    I know you can’t – not even in sections where the “clearly stated methodology” is almost entirely unstated – but argument from personal ignorance is fallacious and unconvincing. And that’s why I pointed out some of the distortion and cherrypicking tactics he uses.

    Tim chose to call it ‘unscrupulous’ but I find that difficult to understand because the methodology was clearly outlined.

    One of your errors is to presume that methods may not be simultaneously “clearly outlined” and unscrupulous. And as you’ve admitted both explicitly and implicitly you aren’t equipped with the skills necessary to detect when they are unscrupulous – once again in that quote – yet you insist certain analyses from certain sources are kosher.

    Ever wondered why you’re so adamantly making mutually inconsistent claims?

    Can you please explain how this work is any less valid than the work you deem is superior?

    I already did that.

    But since it didn’t sink in the first time, here’s another attempt. Ponder carefully. Twice over this ground is enough.

    In some areas he chooses to show some data sets and not others, and – entirely coincidentally I’m sure – the ones that he leaves out make it much easier for readers to get a different message than his editorialising (albeit often subtle) implies.

    He does analyses on top of some solid data sets in order to support his editorialising that (a) are not described in anywhere near sufficient detail to understand how they were done, (b) are not obviously appropriate ways to study the issue he’s talking about and (c) are often vast simplifications compared to how the issues are studied in the scientific literature – and, coincidentally I’m sure – point to very different conclusions from more sophisticated and careful analyses.

    Furthermore – coincidentally, I’m sure – he does not draw his readers’ attention to those other analyses, does not compare his with the others, and certainly does not demonstrate why his are better than theirs.

    In other cases he chooses a form of presentation that minimises the visual appearance to the naked eye of the very outcome of the (mainstream) analysis that is the issue. This is not the behaviour of someone who is interested in honestly presenting what the data says.

    The whole thing is practically a master class in how to mislead the gullible with statistics and a few well chosen words. (And look, it works!)

    Also, contrary to your claim, I haven’t set myself up as authority on anything. I’m merely applying the first touches of standard scientific tests to claims made. I’m no scientist so anyone actually competent in the field could probably go a lot deeper. But from what I can detect, it’s obvious that the claims would not survive peer review in any decent journal.

    (Have you ever wondered, if he has such compelling evidence that the mainstream is quite far off reality, why he hasn’t published in a good journal? It would be a huge career boost overnight to demonstrate that.)

    Some of the evidence you have posted has done something remarkably similar…

    Given you well-demonstrated inability to distinguish pseudo-scientific bullshit from careful analysis, I will take that claim with a huge dollop of salt.

  51. #51 Lotharsson
    December 30, 2012

    You only ever read the titles Lothe?

    Wrong again. At least you’re consistent.

  52. #52 chameleon
    December 30, 2012

    Bill,
    I guess stating the bleeding obvious can be boring.
    I think the fact that the climate is a variable and difficult beast is rather a bleeding obvious and hence boring statement as well.
    You seem unwilling to realise that apart from your tendency to throw unsubstantiated personal insults that you have provided nothing that would actually disprove what either spangles or bolt or even my boring comments have outlined. Neither have they proved anything that other comments have claimed.
    What is your point actually?

  53. #53 Lotharsson
    December 30, 2012

    However, that paricular link does demonstrate the shortcomings of a blind reliance on statistical representations of something as variable as climate.

    So we come full circle, and (coincidentally I’m sure), despite all of the evidence pointing out the falsehood, you re-assert that climate science is based on nothing more than a bit of statistical manipulation – and in doing so implies that you can distinguish scientific bullshit from gold despite extensive counter-evidence.

    Truly, self-awareness is not one of your strong suits.

    Now that we’ve seen your full repertoire of claims, will you feel satisfied enough to go make them somewhere else?

  54. #54 chameleon
    December 30, 2012

    So Lotharsson,
    did you happen to notice Humlum’s credentials and published work?
    Despite what you claim here, he is not a lightweight in the science world.
    On what basis should I take your analysis over his?
    I find it rather odd that you are so easily able to dismiss someone with this much experience.
    Do you have better credentials?
    I did not claim that this work was better or worse. I linked it because it showed how different results and conclusions can be statistically presented using the same data sets.
    Tim also showed this.
    While I agree that Humlum’s approach is less complicated I do not agree he has presented anything in an invalid manner.
    I also pointed out that extrapolating SLR from shoter data sets is unlikely to be of much use.
    Humlum is not the only scientist who has chosen to do this however.

  55. #55 chameleon
    December 30, 2012

    Oh goodness me Lotharsson,
    seriously?
    I have not claimed any such thing.
    Some of my closest business associates and friends are scientists.
    I do not disrepect scientists or science.
    Can I respectfully suggest you go back and reread YA Rob’s and David B’s comments?
    While their perspective is somewhat similar to yours they actually conceded that stats play a role in this discussion.

  56. #56 Lotharsson
    December 30, 2012

    On what basis should I take your analysis over his?

    On the basis that I made easily verifiable claims about the shortcomings in his presentation – or on the basis that as far as I’m aware he hasn’t managed to get any of them published in a peer reviewed journal which should be a big red flag of warning – or on the basis that his claims go against the conclusions from a mass of peer reviewed papers and he hasn’t demonstrated why his analysis should be taken seriously, let alone seriously enough to discard all of that other work. In other words, the last point is not my analysis at all, it’s the analysis of the entire field of climate science.

    You should preferably take all three.

    Do you have better credentials?

    Certainly not.

    But argument from authority is fallacious, unless it is the authority of evidence and logic. And if you really want an argument from authority, the overwhelming consensus reported by the IPCC is far far stronger. So…are you agreeing that the consensus position should be accepted now because you argue by authority?

    I did not claim that this work was better or worse.

    Riiiiiiiiight.

    You claimed they were “useful tools” which “help us understand the world around us”, even though they reach different conclusions from more rigorous analysis. How can they be “useful tools” if they are not better than the alternative which they contradict?

    Coherence is not your strong suit.

    I linked it because it showed how different results and conclusions can be statistically presented using the same data sets.

    Riiiiiight. So the whole thing about them being “useful tools for understanding” was not relevant?

    True, you certainly demonstrated that different results can be reached from the same data set – which no-one disputed anyway. I mean, that’s obvious in the blog post, and in many others here.

    But you refuse to go the next step. When two different conclusions are reached, how do you determine which one is more justified? And when I started to point out some signs that an amateur can use if they have nothing else to go on you object to their validity. When I point out that the professionals overwhelmingly disagree, you also object. It seems – like Spangled Drongo – the only analysis you won’t find objectionable is the one you already agree with.

    Why is no-one here surprised at that?

  57. #57 Lotharsson
    December 30, 2012

    I do not disrepect scientists or science.

    Your first handful of comments here did.

    Self-awareness isn’t your strong suit.

    …they actually conceded that stats play a role in this discussion.

    As has everyone here as far as I can see. That’s never been the point of contention.

    Comprehension isn’t your strong suit either.

    I have not claimed any such thing.

    So…that thing you started out on this site with, what was it, something like “climate models at their core are fundamentally based on statistics, just like economic and population models are”: you are finally repudiating that now after refusing for so long in the face of counter-evidence?

    Maybe you could clarify where you think climate science uses something more than statistical manipulation etc.

  58. #58 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    “SLs are not roughly the same all over the world,”

    Bill, according to the link you supplied [did you read it?] SLs vary +/- 24 cms world wide and when the trades vary, so do the SLs.

    As I said: roughly the the same all over the world.

    “Why do you think we look at trends and not snapshots?”

    You don’t look at either, Lothe, you just look at models.

  59. #59 Bernard J.
    December 30, 2012

    BJ, you are the distraction specialist. Just a pity yours always seem to bite you on the bum.

    Typical Drongo. Reflecting his own behaviour on others when it’s pointed out that he’s doing it.

    I’m up for the game though. Which of my points and questions are distractions? If you list them we can analyse whether they really are distractions or not, and we can presume that any that you don’t list are automatically substantive and require answers from you.

    And don’t tell me you haven’t studied the Ross-Lempriere controversy

    Oh, I have, and far beyond Daly’s ridiculous blatherings. There is much that can be said about the errors in Daly’s unsound notions, but here’s a sampling…

    Daly presumes that Captain Shortt (via his agent Mason) is less accurate in recording the wording on the datum plaque than was the yacht passenger named “Eight Bells”, even though the Shortt rendering describes a nautical time format standard in the 19th century, and Eight Bells’ wording does not. Further, Eight Bells’ account is dated 3 years after Shortt’s, and though the latter was already noting the degradation of the text, Daly presumes that Eight Bells more accurately records the time – although to fiddle his figures Daly immediately goes on to presume that Eight Bells misread the tide height stated on the plaque…

    Daly is drawing long bows in order to allow his interpretation,and is discounting parsimony that rebuts his own interpretation.

    Daly ignores the fact that tide gauges around the world, aside from Lempriere’s mark, indicate sea level rise.

    Further, Daly’s insistence that the Lempriere mark is a mean sea level mark leads to the ridiculous situation that the land around Port Arthur would have had to drop by 30 cm – in addition to assuming that there has been no sea level rise in the whole time since Lempriere’s carving of the mark, contrary to those uncooperative gauges around the world!

    But not only that, Daly hypothesises that this subsidence occurred between 1 July 1841 (the date of the mark’s carving) and the 20th century, because otherwise it would have been recorded by tide gauges – gauges which actually show sea level rise (shades of Ernst Beck…?). So these gauges would have been able to show sea level decreases (except Daly conveniently places this before the time of gauges) but they don’t show sea level rise – notice any inconsistency…?

    But it’s worse than that. Much, much worse. Daly actually suggests that the subsidence occurred before 1888, using Shortt’s account of less water over rocks latterly, and pictures that apparently show less water around Port Arthur. There are two serious problems with this theory – the first is that such subsidence in such a short time implies a major tectonic event that seems to be curiously absent from any records of the time, and the second is that shallower water over time implies that the land rose, which is in diametric opposition to Daly’s claim that it sank 30 cm! Daly is confusing the idea of “sea level fall” with land subsidence – if the land had dropped as Daly imagines, it would have resulted in an apparent sea level rise, as would be required to drop this stubbornly high Lempriere mark down to mean sea level.

    Daly’s theory is self-contradictory.

    Have you never thought it strange that Daly’s version has never been published as a rebuttal to Hunter, Pugh, Coleman and Church? It’s highly amusing though that Anthony Watts, Joanne Codling, Steve Goddard and ‘Tallbloke’, amongst others, gave Daly credence. To his credit, Steve McIntyre smelled the carcass of Daly’s rat and kept it at arm’s length.

    One last comment about Daly though. Before the Hunter et al paper was released, he was all for the excellence of the Port Arthut site because:

    “This is the oldest known such bench mark in the world,” says greenhouse dissenter John Daly, who took the photograph. “Ross put it in an ideal location which is both geologically stable and open to the vast Southern ocean, with no local estuary effects to distort the tides.”

    [Emboldened emphasis mine.]

    Now why do you think Daly said that?

    Moving on…

    And I have never used surges to claim SLR. Now you are plain telling porkies. Desperate stuff.

    I never said that you “used surges to claim SLR”. Desperate stuff.

    However, you claimed that the tide at your river wall was influenced by the ocean surge (your words, remember), and that your ‘mark’ on the river wall reflected decreasing sea level over time (your ongoing claim). I simply rebutted your claim that “we aren’t talking about SURGES” .

    You are the one telling lies. However, if you can show where I said that you “used surges to claim SLR” I’d be happy to see the link.

    “It doesn’t matter if satellites don’t move parallel to the Earth’s surface.”

    If you’re so easily duped as to believe remote systems fed through multiple corrections and assumptions can give a tiny signal that is distinct from noise then you haven’t got a sceptical scientist’s bone in your body.

    Now you’re just being a fool, and demonstrating that you have no clue about satellite guidance and location technology, or about statistics.

    But no-one here is surprised.

  60. #60 Bernard J.
    December 30, 2012

    Lotharsson:

    Why is no-one here surprised at that?

    Snap!

  61. #61 David B. Benson
    December 30, 2012
  62. #62 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    “SLs are not roughly the same all over the world,”

    Bill, looking further at those links of yours and considering your vacuous comment, here are some figures:

    Average global temp, 16c. Average global temp range + 100c.= ~ 600%

    Average global sea depth, 14,000′. Average global SL variation range, +/- 1′.[ie 2'] = 0.014%

    How similar is that?

    Paying attention, Mike?

  63. #63 David B. Benson
    December 30, 2012

    However, it would be wise to (at least) read
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/
    in which the very first question is
    What is the difference between a physics-based model and a statistical model?
    and the answer reads in part
    “Climate models are fundamentally physics-based, but some of the small scale physics is only known empirically (for instance, the increase of evaporation as the wind increases). Thus statistical fits to the observed data are included in the climate model formulation, but these are only used for process-level parameterisations, not for trends in time.”
    which means these are not statistical predictors (except for ENSO).

  64. #64 chameleon
    December 30, 2012

    What total rubbish and nonsense Lotharsson,
    I have not and did not say I disrespect scientists and/or science.
    Neither did I claim that climate models have nothing to do with science.
    If you were trying to insult me you have spectacularly suceeded.
    I have academic quals in science and so does my husband!!
    A large number of our friends and associates are also scientists in a varying number of fields including environmental sciences.
    So despite your crude insults to the contrary I am more than capable of differentiating science from stat representations of scientific data.
    What you have effectively done is ‘cherry picked’ sentences from my comments and analysed them out of context with the rest based on your very quick and totally unsubstantiated assumptions about me.
    I would suggest that is rather unscrupulous of you Lotharsson and totally unscientific of you.
    Far more unscrupulous than the claims that Tim made about the stat representation of climate data.
    Of course argument from authority is fallacious.
    Good grief!
    Yet there you are partly (repeat partly) claiming there really is only ONE authority that we should take notice of and someone like Humlum, who has perfectly decent scientific qualifications and experience, should be dismissed.
    Most of your comments here remind me of something to do with pots and kettles.
    So yes your constant rudeness and goading has suceeded in being downright insulting.
    If that was your aim.
    Congratulations Lotharsson.
    Cheers
    Chameleon

  65. #65 chameleon
    December 30, 2012

    I apologise David B,
    You are correct, you asserted.

  66. #66 Lotharsson
    December 30, 2012

    You don’t look at either, Lothe, you just look at models.

    Ah, the carnival clown act continues with more wrongness.

    I’m beginning to suspect you enjoy intellectual humiliation.

  67. #67 David B. Benson
    December 30, 2012

    Thermal expansion coefficient of ocean is approximately 0.4267/K
    from
    http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_7/2_7_9.html
    from which one is supposed to see that almost all the SLR over the instrumental period is from thermal expansion.

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    December 30, 2012

    I have not and did not say I disrespect scientists and/or science.

    Comprehension fails you again.

    I did not point out that you said you did, but that you did (and Wow pointed out the same back then).

    Neither did I claim that climate models have nothing to do with science.

    Recall isn’t your strong suit either.

    What you said was – and I quote:

    I have only seen rapidly failing computer generated predictive models.

    And a little later as you expounded on that claim you introduced the new term “stat model”:

    … the alarming claims about SLR in relation to AGW & ACO2 are only appearing in the stat modelling not in reality.

    And you went on to elaborate on the term:

    I do question calling the discipline of stat modelling ‘science’ however.

    But wait, wait, I thought you just said you’ve never claimed that climate models have nothing to do with science. And yet here you are calling climate models “stat models” and then rhetorically questioning whether they are scientific?

    So … I am more than capable of differentiating science from stat representations of scientific data.

    Comprehension fail. That is not what I pointed out.

    I have academic quals in science…

    Not post-grad research, I would venture. If I am wrong I would suggest you ask for your money back.

    I’d also point out that “academic quals in science” are no bulwark against making the most egregiously unscientific claims, as Joanne Nova and various emeritus professors have demonstrated over the last few years.

    What you have effectively done is ‘cherry picked’ sentences from my comments and analysed them out of context with the rest based on your very quick and totally unsubstantiated assumptions about me.

    Logic fail – as previously pointed out. My analysis is not based on assumptions about you. It is based on the evidence you provide here. Provide different evidence and my analysis will change. You’ve been invited to in the past.

    And feel free to show where I have reached a conclusion that is incorrect because it is based on an out-of-context quote.

    Yet there you are partly (repeat partly) claiming there really is only ONE authority that we should take notice of…

    Comprehension fail.

    I did no such thing. Try reading it again SLOWLY. Hint: the word “if” has a specific connotation.

    Of course argument from authority is fallacious.

    You really think so? But then you argue against your own claim, seemingly without realising it:

    …and someone like Humlum, who has perfectly decent scientific qualifications and experience, should be dismissed.

    Comprehension AND logic fail.

    I did not argue that Humlum as a person should be dismissed. I argued that his “climate4you” report was seriously misleading. If you – allegedly science-qualified – cannot understand this distinction, you are unequipped to be making the kinds of claims you are making.

  69. #69 David B. Benson
    December 30, 2012

    From
    http://arstechnica.com/science/2009/03/scientists-track-the-oceans-rise-as-the-globe-warms/
    we have about 0.5 mm/yr of SLR due to thermal expansion since 1965. From
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
    global temperatures rose 0,67 K which is 0.013958 K/yr.

    So the actual thermal expansion is 35.82 mm/K.

  70. #70 chameleon
    December 30, 2012

    Thanks for those links David B,
    They have the common sense to point out the differences between what is known and what is the best guesses.
    You might enjoy them too Lotharsson, it may help you to perhaps calm down a little.
    :-)

  71. #71 David B. Benson
    December 30, 2012

    chameleon — You are welcome. I used this occasion as an opportunity to work out the approximate thermal expansion, 36 mm/K (since I always carry around far more decimal places than are significant). I wanted this is there are a few who were concerned about it. But compared to what is coming from melting ice it clearly is of minor significance.

  72. #72 chameleon
    December 30, 2012

    Yes David B,
    and as several of them point out, they need more data and a better understanding of glacial melt.
    They also point out that it is not consistent.

  73. #73 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    “Which of my points and questions are distractions?”

    How about big noting yourself with your multihull designer mates who served no purpose except to show you a bit about pos feedback?

    It is interesting that you are selective in detailing Ross’ instructions because this is his account of his dealings with Lempriere and it was for a MEAN SL mark which is what has always been and still is used for obvious reasons:

    “My principal object in visiting Port Arthur was to afford a comparison of our standard barometer with that which had been employed for several years by Mr. Lempriere, the Deputy Assistant Commissary General, in accordance with my instructions, and also to establish a permanent mark at the zero point, or general mean level of the sea as determined by the tidal observations which Mr. Lempriere had conducted with perseverance and exactness for some time: by which means any secular variation in the relative level of the land and sea, which is known to occur on some coasts, might at any future period be detected, and its amount determined.
    The point chosen for this purpose was the perpendicular cliff of the small islet off Point Puer, which, being near to the tide register, rendered the operation more simple and exact. The Governor, whom I had accompanied on an official visit to the settlement, gave directions to afford Mr. Lempriere every assistance of labourers he required, to have the mark cut deeply in the rock in the exact spot which his tidal observations indicated as the mean level of the ocean.”
    The above plus the fact that this benchmark is ~35 cms above MSL strongly indicates a SL fall but even if we accept the weak CSIRO reasoning, nothing much is happening

    “However, you claimed that the tide at your river wall was influenced by the ocean surge”

    Don’t verbal me Bernie, this is what I said: “At my benchmark the ’74 flood was about 1.5 metres above the king tide mark and the current was still running UPSTREAM at its peak. IOW this rise was possibly all due to the cyclone and sea surge. Not the flood.”

    In case you can’t understand English, that means that the 1.5 m increase ABOVE THE NORMAL KING TIDE was possibly all due to the cyclone and sea surge.

    That is claiming the reverse of what you say.

    “Now you’re just being a fool, and demonstrating that you have no clue about satellite guidance and location technology, or about statistics.”

    So S/N doesn’t cut it with you Bern? Not if it agrees with your ideology, eh?

    What science! What religion! But you probably sleep better without any conflict.

    Is that why you have spent your well advanced life without making any observations of your own?

    Your ancestors would be proud of you

  74. #74 Bernard J.
    December 30, 2012
    “Which of my points and questions are distractions?”

    How about big noting yourself with your multihull designer mates who served no purpose except to show you a bit about pos feedback?

    Actually, it served a very specific purpose. My point was to inform you that I wanted to check your reputation amongst people who are professional boat designers and who understand hydrodynamics.

    You failed to come up with the goods by the way, and your attempt at one-upmanship with your silliness about positive feedback blew up in your face.

    Ba-bowww.

    It is interesting that you are selective in detailing Ross’ instructions because this is his account of his dealings with Lempriere and it was for a MEAN SL mark which is what has always been and still is used for obvious reasons:

    “My principal object in visiting Port Arthur was to afford a comparison of our standard barometer with that which had been employed for several years by Mr. Lempriere, the Deputy Assistant Commissary General, in accordance with my instructions, and also to establish a permanent mark at the zero point, or general mean level of the sea as determined by the tidal observations which Mr. Lempriere had conducted with perseverance and exactness for some time: by which means any secular variation in the relative level of the land and sea, which is known to occur on some coasts, might at any future period be detected, and its amount determined.

    The point chosen for this purpose was the perpendicular cliff of the small islet off Point Puer, which, being near to the tide register, rendered the operation more simple and exact. The Governor, whom I had accompanied on an official visit to the settlement, gave directions to afford Mr. Lempriere every assistance of labourers he required, to have the mark cut deeply in the rock in the exact spot which his tidal observations indicated as the mean level of the ocean.”

    The above plus the fact that this benchmark is ~35 cms above MSL strongly indicates a SL fall but even if we accept the weak CSIRO reasoning, nothing much is happening.

    Drongo, go back and read my post again. The Lempreire mark cannot possibly be a mean sea level mark, for the multiple reasins I listed. Daly simply FUBARed in trying to mangle the evidence to fit his theory.

    Also, Ross himself said:

    I may here observe, that it is not essential that the benchmark be made exactly at the mean level of the ocean, indeed it is more desirable that it should be rather above the reach of the highest tide: it is, however, important that it be made on some part of a solid cliff, not liable to rapid disintegration, and the exact distance above the mean level (which may also be marked more slightly) recorded on a plate of copper, well protected from the weather, by placing a flat stone with cement between, upon the plain surface or platform which should constitute the mark from which the level of the mean tide should be measured (see Cosmos, p288 and note p95).

    Read the above quote from Ross carefully, several times if you have to, because it describes what eventuated – the mark was made at “‘height of water in tide gauge 6 ft. 1 in”, exactly in accordance with Ross’s description of the preferrable method of construction.

    And just to repeat, in case you missed in the first and second times around, there is no way that the mark could measure mean sea level in 1841. The only way Daly managed to scam this was to claim that the land have subsided 30 cm after the mark was made – which inconveniently was contradicted by the fact of stories that water was shallower according to his ‘evidence’..

    http://keyportarthur.org.au/extras/1044/The%20sea%20level%20at%20PA%20from%201841%20to%20present%20by%20John%20Hunter.pdf

    http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/ihr_paper.pdf

    http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/bamos_pap.pdf

    Face it Drongo, Daly was wrong about the Lempreire mark, and you are wrong about the mark – and about everything else that you claim that contradicts professional science.

    “However, you claimed that the tide at your river wall was influenced by the ocean surge”

    Don’t verbal me Bernie, this is what I said: “At my benchmark the ’74 flood was about 1.5 metres above the king tide mark and the current was still running UPSTREAM at its peak. IOW this rise was possibly all due to the cyclone and sea surge. Not the flood.”

    Verballing you?!

    Let’s just rewind. You said:

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

    I said:

    However, you claimed that the tide at your river wall was influenced by the ocean surge.

    How the fuck am I verballing you? You said that the rise at your mark was due to cyclone/surge. Then you said “In case you hadn’t noticed BJ, we aren’t talking about SURGES“.

    How exactly am I verballing you, when all I was doing was pointing out what you had said?

    Doddering fool.

    In case you can’t understand English, that means that the 1.5 m increase ABOVE THE NORMAL KING TIDE was possibly all due to the cyclone and sea surge.

    Ah, a spark flashes.

    This has been one of my points all along – that meterological and oceanographic superimpositions (aside from riverine alterations and other factors) mask sea level manifestation at your river wall. I’m pleased to see that you now concede this: the next step is to admit that these confounders render useless your measurement of riverine king tide as a proxy for sea level.

    That is claiming the reverse of what you say.

    You really are off your fucking rocker. It’s exactly what I was saying.

    “Now you’re just being a fool, and demonstrating that you have no clue about satellite guidance and location technology, or about statistics.”

    So S/N doesn’t cut it with you Bern? Not if it agrees with your ideology, eh?

    Signal and noise?! You are all of the latter and none of the former.

    As one who appreciates objectivity and testability, your absence of signal and excess of noise certainly does not cut it with me.

    The rest of your screed is just blah, blah, blah.

    At least you are consistent in that way…

  75. #75 Bernard J.
    December 30, 2012

    Hi Tim.

    This and the first of these three posts should be deleted. The second is properly formatted.

    I’d have emailed you instead of posting this third time, but I’m having trouble accessing my usual account that I use for blog emails.

    “Which of my points and questions are distractions?”

    How about big noting yourself with your multihull designer mates who served no purpose except to show you a bit about pos feedback?

    Actually, it served a very specific purpose. My point was to inform you that I wanted to check your reputation amongst people who are professional boat designers and who understand hydrodynamics.

    You failed to come up with the goods by the way, and your attempt at one-upmanship with your silliness about positive feedback blew up in your face.

    Ba-bowww.

    It is interesting that you are selective in detailing Ross’ instructions because this is his account of his dealings with Lempriere and it was for a MEAN SL mark which is what has always been and still is used for obvious reasons:

    “My principal object in visiting Port Arthur was to afford a comparison of our standard barometer with that which had been employed for several years by Mr. Lempriere, the Deputy Assistant Commissary General, in accordance with my instructions, and also to establish a permanent mark at the zero point, or general mean level of the sea as determined by the tidal observations which Mr. Lempriere had conducted with perseverance and exactness for some time: by which means any secular variation in the relative level of the land and sea, which is known to occur on some coasts, might at any future period be detected, and its amount determined.

    The point chosen for this purpose was the perpendicular cliff of the small islet off Point Puer, which, being near to the tide register, rendered the operation more simple and exact. The Governor, whom I had accompanied on an official visit to the settlement, gave directions to afford Mr. Lempriere every assistance of labourers he required, to have the mark cut deeply in the rock in the exact spot which his tidal observations indicated as the mean level of the ocean.”

    The above plus the fact that this benchmark is ~35 cms above MSL strongly indicates a SL fall but even if we accept the weak CSIRO reasoning, nothing much is happening.

    Drongo, go back and read my post again. The Lempreire mark cannot possibly be a mean sea level mark, for the multiple reasins I listed. Daly simply FUBARed in trying to mangle the evidence to fit his theory.

    Also, Ross himself said:

    I may here observe, that it is not essential that the benchmark be made exactly at the mean level of the ocean, indeed it is more desirable that it should be rather above the reach of the highest tide: it is, however, important that it be made on some part of a solid cliff, not liable to rapid disintegration, and the exact distance above the mean level (which may also be marked more slightly) recorded on a plate of copper, well protected from the weather, by placing a flat stone with cement between, upon the plain surface or platform which should constitute the mark from which the level of the mean tide should be measured (see Cosmos, p288 and note p95).

    Read the above quote from Ross carefully, several times if you have to, because it describes what eventuated – the mark was made at “‘height of water in tide gauge 6 ft. 1 in”, exactly in accordance with Ross’s description of the preferrable method of construction.

    And just to repeat, in case you missed in the first and second times around, there is no way that the mark could measure mean sea level in 1841. The only way Daly managed to scam this was to claim that the land have subsided 30 cm after the mark was made – which inconveniently was contradicted by the fact of stories that water was shallower according to his ‘evidence’..

    http://keyportarthur.org.au/extras/1044/The%20sea%20level%20at%20PA%20from%201841%20to%20present%20by%20John%20Hunter.pdf

    http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/ihr_paper.pdf

    http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/bamos_pap.pdf

    Face it Drongo, Daly was wrong about the Lempreire mark, and you are wrong about the mark – and about everything else that you claim that contradicts professional science.

    “However, you claimed that the tide at your river wall was influenced by the ocean surge”

    Don’t verbal me Bernie, this is what I said: “At my benchmark the ’74 flood was about 1.5 metres above the king tide mark and the current was still running UPSTREAM at its peak. IOW this rise was possibly all due to the cyclone and sea surge. Not the flood.”

    Verballing you?!

    Let’s just rewind. You said:

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

    I said:

    However, you claimed that the tide at your river wall was influenced by the ocean surge.

    How the fuck am I verballing you? You said that the rise at your mark was due to cyclone/surge. Then you said “In case you hadn’t noticed BJ, we aren’t talking about SURGES“.

    How exactly am I verballing you, when all I was doing was pointing out what you had said?

    Doddering fool.

    In case you can’t understand English, that means that the 1.5 m increase ABOVE THE NORMAL KING TIDE was possibly all due to the cyclone and sea surge.

    Ah, a spark flashes.

    This has been one of my points all along – that meterological and oceanographic superimpositions (aside from riverine alterations and other factors) mask sea level manifestation at your river wall. I’m pleased to see that you now concede this: the next step is to admit that these confounders render useless your measurement of riverine king tide as a proxy for sea level.

    That is claiming the reverse of what you say.

    You really are off your fucking rocker. It’s exactly what I was saying.

    “Now you’re just being a fool, and demonstrating that you have no clue about satellite guidance and location technology, or about statistics.”

    So S/N doesn’t cut it with you Bern? Not if it agrees with your ideology, eh?

    Signal and noise?! You are all of the latter and none of the former.

    As one who appreciates objectivity and testability, your absence of signal and excess of noise certainly does not cut it with me.

    The rest of your screed is just blah, blah, blah.

    At least you are consistent in that way…

  76. #76 ianam
    December 30, 2012

    the differences between what is known and what is the best guesses

    Yet another imbecile who has no understanding of science, which is about inference to the best explanation, which could be translated into imbecile-speak as “best guesses”.

  77. #77 ianam
    December 30, 2012

    Ever noticed how SLs are roughly the same all over the world?

    stupid dipshit thinks that because, whenever he’s out in his boat, the water always comes up to the same level.

  78. #78 chameleon
    December 30, 2012

    Ianam,
    Did you actually look at the links?

  79. #79 Lotharsson
    December 30, 2012

    You might enjoy them too Lotharsson, it may help you to perhaps calm down a little.

    I’ve been quite calm all along – except, perhaps, in your mind. Shame you have time to comment on this, but not address more substantial issues I’ve raise. But perhaps you just need a bit more information?

    Here’s some analysis which suggests that one should be very careful not to simply accept what Prof. Humlum claims about climate science without doing some careful and informed checking – the kind of informed analysis that the general public does not have the skills to perform, but the kind of thing I’d expect someone with academic science credentials to have a quick look for before they cited un-peer reviewed work.

    Here’s some analysis of a non-peer reviewed letter published in a newspaper that Humlum signed on to (and some of the claims look similar to some that you have made here). If the analysis is even half right it speaks to the poor quality of claims Humlum is prepared to lend his name to outside of the peer-reviewed journals – as does this analysis of his May 2011 newspaper article.

    You could also analyse the comments on Humlum’s August 2012 paper starting here which suggest the same thing. And the comments starting here about the Climate4You website.

    If that’s not enough, you could also consider the fairly straightforward critiques made by actual climate scientists here. That one claims that Humlum has relied a paper which rebuts his claim in its abstract without explaining why his results trump the one he cites; that another fairly basic critique (for a climate scientists) has been made to Humlum several times but he continues to ignore it; it links to still further examples alleging Humlum uses his figures to misrepresent; and points out Humlum repeatedly contradicting his own claims. And you could read the article itself which critiques a Humlum paper – and links to earlier examples of blatant distortion and misrepresentation by Humlum. Ironically, one of these calls Humlum out for doing the kind of unphysical forecast-via-extrapolation-from-statistical-curve-fit (complete with leaving out inconvenient portions of the underlying data series) that you have been suggesting is done all too often in climate science.

    And I’m sure you could have found all this and more had you wanted to! Taken together these suggest that Humlum’s credentials and achievements in geology have not translated to the field of climate science where his work is frequently shoddy (and others aren’t always so charitable).

    Of course, to figure out whether those writers or Humlum are decidedly more correct would take more of those skills that most of Humlum’s intended non-scientific readership (including you based on the evidence here) don’t have. But even without those skills some of those commenters occasionally give critiques that are verifiable even by scientifically unskilled people. If anyone is actually interested they will be able to find those critiques in minutes and see if they are valid.

    (Anyone else wanna bet that chameleon won’t make the effort?)

  80. #80 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    Area of the world’s oceans: 361,000,000 sq klms

    variation in height: +/- 24 centimeters

    That makes a billiard table look very bumpy.

    With something that finds equilibrium as agressively as water, if your local SL has not increased and even reduced in ~70 years, what are the chances of accelerating SLR anywhere?

  81. #81 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    SL variation of +/- 24 centimeters over the surface of the world’s oceans is the equivalent of one twentieth of the thickness of a human hair over the length of a full size billiard table.

    Now I just installed a full sized billiard table and running a steel straight edge over the 2″ thick Italian slate produced bigger gaps than that.

    So the ocean is considerably flatter than a billiard table.

    Is that equilibrium or what?

  82. #82 Wow
    December 30, 2012

    And the ant can lift 50x its own weight but if you brought it up to the size of a human, it wouldn’t be able to lift itself.

    Your billiard table doesn’t have a range of 24 cm in the height of its beize.

  83. #83 Wow
    December 30, 2012

    “I have academic quals in science…”

    I.e. you went to school one day.

  84. #84 Wow
    December 30, 2012

    “PS Sandy.
    You truly are champions at missing the point entirely.”

    You stated that no coastal effects were seen.

    Sandy gives lie to that.

    Apparently to you “reading” means “looking at the words”.

    I would suggest a course in reading COMPREHENSION.

  85. #85 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    So the flatness is due to the cloth is it Wow? Why don’t you check my figures if you reckon I’m wrong.

    And I probably am.

    I think it’s more like 1/100 th the thickness of a human hair.

    One micron over the length of the table. +/- half a micron.

  86. #86 chameleon
    December 30, 2012

    Wow?
    Sandy was a hurricane and a localised weather event.
    Of course it affected the coast during the storm surges.
    Who said hurricanes and major storms don’t have coastal effects?
    What do you think Sandy was?
    Storms, hurricanes, cyclones etc have always affected the coastline and regularly cause damage to coastal infrastructure.
    If you believe Sandy was something other than a hurricane would you care to explain in what manner?

  87. #87 Lionel A
    December 30, 2012

    With something that finds equilibrium as agressively as water,…

    You silly person, water in the oceans never gets a chance to reach equilibrium, tell me why?

    Are you aware that oceanic surfaces change in mean height as one sails away from the coast? In fact there is a hill of water in the North Atlantic with the highest level offset to the West. Once again, tell me why?

    Ocean levels are also affected by differential gravitation due to density changes in the planets surface.

    The bottom line in all this is that discussions of sea level rise over the last 200 years are almost moot compared to the rise we will see in the coming decades most of the cryosphere increases acceleration of melt. If you have not grasped that yet then you have not been paying attention to all the citations that have appeared here and elsewhere.

  88. #88 Wow
    December 30, 2012

    “With something that finds equilibrium as agressively as water”

    It has to flow. The gradient of 2m over 1000km is quite low and water is not of zero viscosity and the water cannot reach light speed.

    Therefore it takes water TIME to move to the equilibrium.

    My goodness, the idiocy of deniers knows no end.

  89. #89 Wow
    December 30, 2012

    “Sandy was a hurricane and a localised weather event.”

    It pushed water up further inland because the ocean has risen.

    Do you do idiocy for a job, or is this just a hobby of yours?

  90. #90 Richard Simons
    December 30, 2012

    spangled drongo:

    Average global temp, 16c. Average global temp range + 100c.= ~ 600%

    This one statement tell me that you are out of your depth (hint: what happens if you use Fahrenheit instead of Celsius?). To be consistent with the way you dealt with temperature, you should measure sea level as deviations from about a metre above low water mark and include minimum trough depth and maximum wave height.

    What exactly do you mean by ‘average global temperature range’?

  91. #91 Richard Simons
    December 30, 2012

    chameleon:
    Instead of arguing whether or not Humlum is a lightweight, if you were a scientist you would have noticed that Lotharsson gave some very specific criticisms of Humlum’s work and you would be addressing these. Are they valid? If not, why not? I assume that you have ignored them so far because either you know they are valid or you are unable to assess them.

  92. #92 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    “You silly person, water in the oceans never gets a chance to reach equilibrium, tell me why?”

    Lionel love, do you know how high that “hill of water” is?

    Bill’s link said the hills and the valleys reached a height and depth of +/- 24 cms but even if they were twice that it would still make the ocean many times flatter than the best competition billiard table you could buy.

    When there is that sort of agressive seeking and finding of equilibrium you can be sure if your local sea or ocean hasn’t risen in your lifetime, there is nothing happening.

    Just look out the window, Lionel and stop believing the stuff you are being fed. It may not be true.

  93. #93 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    Wow still thinks he has time to push the bath water up one end while he dries himself.

    Why do you think they are referred to as “Sea Levels” Wowsie?

    Could it be because they are LEVEL?

    And even if the hills were your claimed 2m [which they're not], they would be flatter than a billiard table.

    And how long do you think it would take for those 24 cm “hills” to dissipate once the wind stopped blowing?

    Just think, if the collective Doltoid equilibrium was anywhere near this effective, you might absorb some of this wisdom and we wouldn’t have a problem.

  94. #95 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    RS, go and check what the average ocean depth is.

    “What exactly do you mean by ‘average global temperature range’?”

    The coldest place on earth and the hottest place on earth in any given day. eg -50c at the winter pole to 50c in a summer desert. It is often a lot more than this.

  95. #96 Wow
    December 30, 2012

    “Lionel love, do you know how high that “hill of water” is?”

    Yes.

    That is why they posted the height of that hill of water.

    Do you have any more questions that indicate just as clearly that you don’t read a damn thing?

  96. #97 Wow
    December 30, 2012

    “Wow still thinks he has time to push the bath water up one end while he dries himself.”

    Nope.

    And I’m a little disturbed to hear you imagining me getting out of my bath.

    PS how fat is your arse when you can relate your bath to the ocean in size?

  97. #98 Wow
    December 30, 2012

    “Could it be because they are LEVEL?”

    No.

  98. #99 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    David BB, have you been listening to Robyn [100m] Williams?

    That link of yours is referring only to the geoid and has nothing to do with true sea level.

    I have been saying on this thread all along how the earth is a pear-shaped-geoid-with-flat-spots which only underlines the difficulty in assessing SLs from a satellite.

    Wowsie is still full of blindingly relevant facts as usual.

    And his rebuttal is punishing.

    ““Could it be because they are LEVEL?”

    No.” LOL!

    What debating school did you go to Wowsie?

  99. #100 spangled drongo
    December 30, 2012

    And Wowsie, I’m pleased to hear you do get out of your bath to dry yourself.

    There’s hope for you yet.

1 4 5 6 7 8 20