# 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).

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.

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):

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.

1. #1 Wow
December 30, 2012

There’s none for you, I’m afraid.

2. #2 Wow
December 30, 2012

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

So the level at which the sea is at has nothing to do with the true sea level???

3. #3 David B. Benson
December 30, 2012

“The geoid surface is irregular, unlike the reference ellipsoid which is a mathematical idealized representation of the physical Earth, but considerably smoother than Earth’s physical surface. … the geoid’s total variation is less than 200 m (−106 to +85 m) compared to a perfect mathematical ellipsoid.”
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid
which contains
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geoid_height_red_blue_averagebw.png
and there we see that in the Pacific Warm Pool the geoid is elevated about 30 meters above the reference ellipsoid.

Sailing just north of the equator from Peru to Borneo is uphill almost the entire way. Fortunately the wind is from the stern.

4. #4 chameleon
December 30, 2012

It pushed water up further inland BECAUSE(?) the ocean has risen?
Further than what?
Can you supply the evidence that concludes that Wow?

5. #5 Wow
December 30, 2012

That’s the best you’ve got???

6. #6 chameleon
December 30, 2012

Richard S,
If I was trying to present Humlum’s work as superior or better than others, you would have a point.
I wasn’t.
There are plenty of similar rebuttals of the work that Lotharsson relies on for similar reasons.
My reason for posting Humlum’s work was to point out that

data sets can be presented in many different but equally valid ways.
I absolutely agree there is ‘cherry picking’ and assumptions involved. By their very nature, especially the extrapolation work, it is a given.
They are all useful but I don’t believe any of them are good enough to be used like some type of irrefutable crystal balls.
Their predictive capabilities are meant as a guide not as ‘undeniable’ prophecy.
Don’t get me wrong. It is all very interesting and increasingly high tech. I think that is a good thing. But even the people who put them together always make sure they have caveats and disclaimers about their certainty (as they should).

However, IMHO they are being misused and possibly even outright abused by the surrounding
politics and media.
data sets can be presented in different ways that are equally valid.

7. #7 chameleon
December 30, 2012

Sorry about the way that posted. Samsung tablet fail!
Didn’t let me edit.
That last sentence has inexplicably copied when I attempted to edit it.

8. #8 chameleon
December 30, 2012

So no peer reviewed evidence to support that BECAUSE Wow?
I am curious about your reason for claiming that water was pushed FURTHER(than what?) inland BECAUSE the sea has risen.
My understanding is that area of the coast has had far more damaging hurricanes than Sandy. I believe water has travelled inland before as well.

9. #9 Wow
December 30, 2012

So it appears to be “yes, that is the best you’ve got”.

Tell me, does the eglish language always present this opaque barrier to understanding for you?

10. #10 David B. Benson
December 30, 2012

Wow — The eglish language is greek to me.

🙂

11. #11 Wow
December 30, 2012

“My understanding ”

Well that’s the start of your problems right there.

12. #12 spangled drongo
December 30, 2012

“Sailing just north of the equator from Peru to Borneo is uphill almost the entire way. Fortunately the wind is from the stern.”

Yes it is David but it only rises about a foot in that distance.

All caused by those trade winds you mention. And when they ease, the “hill” dissipates.

The SLs on this odd shaped world we inhabit are all equilibrated around the centre of gravity so boats do not “climb hills” in that respect.

I thought YOU would have known that.

13. #13 chameleon
December 30, 2012

So Wow?
No evidence?
I’m not sure why you think you have answered anything by saying ‘is that the best you’ve got’.
It was you earlier complaining that others don’t supply evidence to back up their comments wasn’t it?
I guess Greek is fine. Maybe David B can translate it? 🙂
You claim that the water was pushed FURTHER inland BECAUSE of higher SL during hurricane Sandy.
Where’s the evidence.
It seems, according to you and Lotharsson that it can’t just be anectdotal and/or personal non scientific obs. It will apparently need to be peer reviewed in an acceptable scientific journal.
So have you got that evidence Wow?
And maybe you might care to explain how the singular isolated weather event of hurricane Sandy negates 70 years of tide gaugue obs supplied by spangled and/or the 50 year obs supplied by Bolt?

14. #14 Wow
December 30, 2012

You’re falling foul of that “in my understanding” problem again, SD.

Anyways, you at least seem to have dropped that ridiculous “the sea is completely LEVEL” crap.

15. #15 Wow
December 30, 2012

“So Wow?
No evidence?”

What do you need evidence for???

That water goes further inland when the sea level is risen???

16. #16 David B. Benson
December 30, 2012

spangled drongo — Go back to a previous post of mine to understand that the correct figure is over 100 meters. That’s over about 18,000 km so the grade is rather gentle. 🙂

17. #17 Wow
December 31, 2012

Glitter’s ballsack here does’t read posts, hence the complete ignorqance of anything said by anyone else other than sparkling dingleberry’s ridiculous assertions.

And even those get short shrift by the dingleberry itself.

18. #18 David B. Benson
December 31, 2012

spangled drongo — In my sailing days I had an occasion when it was all the diesel could do (no wind) to make a modicum of progress against a contrary tide in the San Juan Islands. Certainly was ‘uphill’.

19. #19 chameleon
December 31, 2012

Wow,
you made the claim that this happened during Sandy and it is proof that spangled and bolt’s tide gauge obs were misreprepresenting SL.
You seem quite adamant, so where is the evidence that you set so much store by?
How do you think Sandy negates spangled’s obs of SL?

20. #20 Wow
December 31, 2012

“you made the claim that this happened during Sandy ”

What “this”?

21. #21 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

Sandy is a convenient case to argue for increased impacts from SLR, however I would suggest there are other features that contributed. The facts are that there have been worse storms in the area, and Sandy is simply another extreme event of the kind which do occur from time to time.

Did SLR contribute? I guess it may have though I’d imagine it’s hard to pin the details down. I am sure the bedwetters here would have plenty of pro-arguments. Wow though does not for he is clearly the least likely to offer thoughtful commentary.

This extract from a piece by Paul Driessen is interesting for the light it casts on other potential contributory factors. I make no claims for the correctness of this piece, nor do I know who Driessen is or if he is a knowledgeable commentator. I merely observe there is always more to the story than our alarmist friends would have us believe.

“Mr. Bloomberg’s Arverne by the Sea initiative transformed what he called a swath of vacant land into a vibrant and growing oceanfront community, with affordable homes starting at \$559,000. (The land was vacant because a 1950 storm wiped it clean of structures.) The new homes were built on 167 acres of land raised five feet above the surrounding Far Rockaway area. Those Arverne homes mostly survived Sandy. But the high ground caused storm surges to rise higher and move faster elsewhere than they would have on Rockaway lowlands that are always hit head-on by northward moving storms.

If Sandy had been a category 3 hurricane like its 1938 ancestor, the devastation would have been of biblical proportions as winds, waves and surges slammed into expensive homes, businesses and high-rises, and roared up waterways rendered progressively narrower by hundreds of construction projects.

Lower Manhattan has doubled in width over the centuries. World Trade Center construction alone contributed 1.2 million cubic yards to build Battery Park City, narrowing the Hudson River by another 700 feet. The East River has likewise been hemmed in, while other water channels have been completely filled. Buildings, malls and raised roadways constructed on former potato fields, forests, grasslands and marshlands have further constricted passageways for storm surges and runoff.

As a result, storms like Sandy or the Long Island Express send monstrous volumes of water up ever more confined corridors. With nowhere else to go, the surges rise higher, travel faster and pack more power. It’s elementary physics which governors, mayors, planners and developers ignore at their peril.

No wonder, Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Cuomo and other politicos prefer to talk about global warming, rising seas and worsening weather to deflect attention and blame from decisions that have put more people in the path of greater danger. Indeed, the very notion of packing more and more people into sustainable, energy-efficient coastal cities in the NY-NJ area is itself madness on steroids.

Worst of all, politicians are increasingly and intentionally obscuring and misrepresenting the nature, frequency and severity of storm, flood and surge risks, so that they can promote and permit more construction in high-risk areas, and secure more money and power. They insist that they can prevent or control climate change and sea level rise, by regulating CO2 emission while they ignore real, known dangers that have arisen before and will arise again, exacerbated by their politicized decisions.”

22. #22 chameleon
December 31, 2012

That water travelled FURTHER inland BECAUSE the sea has risen.

December 31, 2012

There are plenty of similar rebuttals of the work that Lotharsson relies on for similar reasons.

ROFL!

I’ll grant that to you on the stipulation that by “similar”, you mean “they sounded plausible to me, but then again I have no skills at separating bulldust from gold”.

The work I rely on has almost exclusively survived peer-review – in most cases both pre-publication and afterwards – and is generally humanity’s best collective understanding. The work you rely upon is generally not peer-reviewed and claims that the best collective understanding suffers from serious errors – and yet fails even basic scientific quality checks that someone like me can apply.

Once again you demonstrate that you don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to science.

My reason for posting Humlum’s work was to point out that data sets can be presented in many different but equally valid ways.

Well, that’s a distortion on two levels.

1) Humlum’s blog output goes beyond “presenting a data set” by doing analysis that conflicts with published analyses based on the same data set.

2) You clearly had more than just that reason, otherwise you wouldn’t have complained about my dismissal of most of Humlum’s claims. You can’t have it both ways: if two scientific claims based on the same dataset, given the confidence intervals associated with both, are almost certainly mutually exclusive how do you go about convincing yourself they remain “equally valid”? This appears to be the crux of your entire schtick – “I say they’re equally valid so on that basis you can’t critique the one I choose to promote”.

Hint: the fact that “data sets can be presented in different but equally valid ways” does NOT imply that “any way a data set is presented is equally valid to any other way”. (That’s one of the key reasons people do science – you know, that discipline that you claim to have academic qualifications in.)

And even if we stick with your stated reason you achieved precisely the opposite – although you still claim otherwise and haven’t even attempted to rebut the critiques of Humlum’s material. It’s impressive how determined you are to keep your head in the sand.

Speaking of Humlum, I have a comment awaiting moderation due to the number of links that goes into more detail on his quality of work. It includes critiques from climate scientists and is even more devastating because they know a lot more about how to detect shoddy work than I do. I’m betting that you’ll continue to insist that Humlum’s material is “equally valid”.

I absolutely agree there is ‘cherry picking’ and assumptions involved. By their very nature, especially the extrapolation work, it is a given.

You claim to have academic science qualifications, and STILL don’t grok that cherrypicking is decidedly NOT part of “their very nature”, and that actual competent scientists have very good ways to test for and reject it?

Your misunderstanding of science provides no support for your claim that you really do have academic science qualifications.

They are all useful but I don’t believe any of them are good enough to be used like some type of irrefutable crystal balls.

Ah, what a lovely false dichotomy to hang your hat upon. There’s no point pointing out that policy has to be based on our best understanding, caveats and all – which includes climate models – and that doing so does NOT mean one is treating climate science as a “crystal ball”.

But it’s even worse than that, as you provide your personal judgement that the outcomes of science are being misused by politicians and the media when you clearly have no way to judge the quality of any scientific claim. You vastly overestimate your own climate science competence.

24. #24 chameleon
December 31, 2012

Last comment was an answer to Wow’s ‘this’ question.

25. #25 Wow
December 31, 2012

“That water travelled FURTHER inland BECAUSE the sea has risen.”

OK, so what’s the problem here?

Do you think that this doesn’t happen? Or that it doesn’t happen if there’s a hurricane?

26. #26 Wow
December 31, 2012

“Sandy is a convenient case to argue for increased impacts from SLR”

Yup, because it is a case for it. It happened recently and therefore is conveniently fresh in the minds of people.

But you’re going to ignore it because you don’t like being wrong?

“however I would suggest there are other features that contributed”

Wow. That was a quick goal post move.

So sea level rise to you will never have any effect until it is the only thing that causes something.

Unlike your earlier whine about how you wanted an example of how Sea Level Rise caused problems. Nothing there about how it had to be the SOLE cause.

27. #27 Wow
December 31, 2012

“They are all useful but I don’t believe any of them are good enough to be used like some type of irrefutable crystal balls.”

Except you do exactly that by claiming that we should do nothing because it will all be better on its own (by using a laughable “model” as your crystal ball).

28. #28 chameleon
December 31, 2012

Wow,
put up or give up.
I can only ‘assume’ you don’t have the evidence.
Your last question is complete nonsense.
No one has claimed that coastal storms DON’T drive water inland.
Maybe you may like to read bolt’s post re Sandy?

29. #29 Wow
December 31, 2012

“Wow,
put up or give up.”

What?

You still haven’t said in any coherent question what you want answered, merely fragments of sentences and demands with no content of what is being demanded.

30. #30 chameleon
December 31, 2012

Wow,
seriously?
You are literally arguing with yourself.
Where do you think I claimed nothing should be done and based it on a model?
Still patiently waiting for that peer reviewed evidence BTW 🙂

31. #31 Wow
December 31, 2012

Weid to have someone whine “put up or shut up” whilst avoiding actually putting a question down to be put up to.

32. #32 David B. Benson
December 31, 2012

From Peru to Indonesia is about 60 cm up in sea level, according to
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/courses/g115/el_nino/2b.html

I take that to mean this develops during ENSO neutral conditions and disappears during El Nino. That is on top of the roughly 60 meter variation in sea level above the geoid around Indonesia.

33. #33 Wow
December 31, 2012

“Where do you think I claimed …”

You did that one before. Asked “where did I say…” then when shown where you said it, ignored it.

I know you claimed “do nothing” and based your assertion on no problem based on some blogroll “model” which consists mostly of “pick two points and fit a line to it saying what I want”.

But apparently not even you listen to you.

34. #34 Wow
December 31, 2012

“Still patiently waiting for that peer reviewed evidence BTW ”

Well you have to ASK for peer reviewed evidence for a start.

But here’s some peer reviewed evidence for you:

http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/wilkins.pdf

December 31, 2012

Still patiently waiting for that peer reviewed evidence BTW

Add “the time that peer-reviewed research and publication takes” to the list of things you don’t understand about science.

I can only ‘assume’ you don’t have the evidence.

I can only assume you are asking Wow for the evidence that Sandy drove water further inland than it otherwise would have due to SLR.

Wow may be scratching his head because he can’t believe that you (and BFPM) are seriously asking a question that is particularly stupid.

Please explain how – in your mind – a storm acting with a higher sea level could possibly do anything BUT drive water further inland than with a lower sea level, all other things being equal. Your answer may refer to any and all of the well established physical and dynamic properties of liquids, even acting under the dynamics of a storm – said properties being very well established through a long history of peer review.

36. #36 Wow
December 31, 2012

What do you think happens when a high pressure system is over the sea?

Does the sea ignore this pressure and remain level?

37. #37 Wow
December 31, 2012

“I can only assume you are asking Wow for the evidence that Sandy drove water further inland than it otherwise would have due to SLR.”

You can’t assume anything with these idiot deniers.

They’ll ask for one thing then when you give them it, they’ll say that wasn’t what they asked for.

This is why they only do half-formed sentences and over-use of the indirect reference to ensure they can claim that it must be something other than what you thought they asked for, yet at the same time, refuse point blank to actually clear up any query about the actual meaning of their demands.

38. #38 spangled drongo
December 31, 2012

DBB, yes, punching a tide is going uphill [imagine the Bay of Fundy], punching a wave is going uphill, heading into a “low” is going uphill, as is running down the trades. These ever-fluctuating influences affect the SLs on a temporary basis but your 100+ meter protrusion over 18,000 klms is just one of the non-spherical phenomena of the geoid and the sea and your boat is still level there. It still equilibrates about the CoG as your boat does when it is traversing it.

It is fascinating to contemplate those bumps and flat spots though. ☺

39. #39 chameleon
December 31, 2012

Chuckle:-) 😉
Nucleic acids?
Good one Wow.
Highly relevant 🙂
no prob with the theory.
Wow’s claim re Sandy was quite specific. He clearly has no evidence of the sort he claimed spangled and bolt must have.
He claimed that 70 and/or 50 years of tide gaugue obs supplied were negated by the singular event of Sandy.
I also don’t see where anyone has said that storms DON’T surge inland.
I’m pretty sure that the opposite to that was said.

December 31, 2012

He clearly has no evidence of the sort he claimed pangled and bolt must have.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand you refuse to answer the question, just as Wow pointed out.

The fact that we haven’t yet got peer-reviewed evidence for a specific factor acting in a specific storm doesn’t have the significance your dogged focus on it implies because we understand an awful lot about how water flows (for example).

So let me ask you again, since you have those academic science qualifications:

Please explain how – in your mind – a storm acting with a higher sea level could possibly do anything BUT drive water further inland than with a lower sea level, all other things being equal. Your answer may refer to any and all of the well established physical and dynamic properties of liquids, even acting under the dynamics of a storm – said properties being very well established through a long history of peer review.

And re:

He claimed that 70 and/or 50 years of tide gaugue obs supplied were negated by the singular event of Sandy.

Comprehension Fail – and an almost complete inversion of the world. (How does one even “negate an observation”? How about trying to form a coherent claim when you feel the urge to make one?)

Of course, if Wow actually did what you think he did you’ll be able to quote him claiming that, right? You know, “put up or give up”?

I also don’t see where anyone has said that storms DON’T surge inland.

Comprehension fail.

No-one has claimed that anyone else claimed that. Try addressing the actual points people make. Hint: you need to understand some basic distinctions, like the distinction between “storms don’t surge inland” and “storms don’t surge more inland when sea level is higher”.

41. #41 Wow
December 31, 2012

“Chuckle:-) 😉
Nucleic acids?
Good one Wow.
Highly relevant”

Well this is what you DEMANDED:

“Still patiently waiting for that peer reviewed evidence BTW”

And I gave you peer reviewed evidence.

However, you never said what you wanted evidence FOR.

So I just picked the first paper from the Nature website.

42. #42 Wow
December 31, 2012

43. #43 Wow
December 31, 2012

“Wow’s claim re Sandy was quite specific. ”

Yup, it was.

Sandy really DID exist.

It happened on the coast.

Water was thrown further inland because the sea levels have risen.

44. #44 Wow
December 31, 2012

Hey, chuckles, here’s another statement for you.

Waves at high tide roll further inland than waves at low tide.

Do you want peer reviewed papers on that too?

45. #45 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

Lotharsson, would not the effects of the storm surge depend on many factors? For example, were another Sandy to happen at the time of lowest annual tide, at low tide, in 2013, would the surge push water as far inland as it did with Sandy?

For example, how high WAS the tide at the time of Sandy? Was that the highest tide on record for that region? Were there other factors that contributed to the effects of the surge?

46. #46 Wow
December 31, 2012

“would not the effects of the storm surge depend on many factors?”

Yes.

Would not one of those factors be THE HEIGHT OF THE SEA LEVEL?

47. #47 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

My point is that sea level in itself is not the sole determinant of the surge. Where is the physical evidence that Sandy was exacerbated by the current sea level? I’m not saying it didn’t but I’d like to see your evidence.

48. #48 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

Maybe Wow, but the actual tide height would be the major factor when it comes to sea level, surely?

49. #49 Wow
December 31, 2012

Gods, you idiots.

Tell me, do you think that you can’t reach any higher if you stand on tiptoes because how high you reach depents on many factors such as “have I lifted my arms up?”

Do you think your weight can’t change by you overeating or going on a diet because weight gain or loss depends on may factors such as “have I been exercising?”

If Sandy occurred at low tide with sea levels higher because of melting glaciers increasing the volume of the oceans, it would still have been driving water in from a higher level than if the sea level were lower.

50. #50 Wow
December 31, 2012

” but the actual tide height would be the major factor when it comes to sea level, surely?”

But having other effects doesn’t make the effect of higher sea levels disappear, surely?

51. #51 Ian Forrester
December 31, 2012

Tablets are more honest than the people using them.

chameleon said:

However, IMHO they are being misused and possibly even outright abused by the surrounding
politics and media.
data sets can be presented in different ways that are equally valid…………Sorry about the way that posted. Samsung tablet fail!

Yes, tablets do that when you get shit on them.

52. #52 Wow
December 31, 2012

“My point is that sea level in itself is not the sole determinant of the surge.”

When shown it did, you now pretend that you wanted “was the major effect”.

53. #53 Wow
December 31, 2012

“Where is the physical evidence that Sandy was exacerbated by the current sea level?”

The physical evidence is that to have higher sea levels there has to be more water in the ocean.

54. #54 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

As for seal level in the region, what do we know about the tide gauges there? I have no idea, but have the tide heights been affected by other physical processes? Eg land reclamation, sedimentation, changes in currents etc? The recorded heights may be caused by more than simply global SLR.

Looking here:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/12.php

I see that tide gauges are well inside the harbour, so it is possible that other more local processes are contributing to tide heights.

55. #55 Wow
December 31, 2012

More simply for Bolt-neck:

The evidence for sea levels being higher is that the level of the sea is higher.

56. #56 Wow
December 31, 2012

“As for seal level in the region, what do we know about the tide gauges there?”

We know that the sea levels are higher.

57. #57 Wow
December 31, 2012

” I have no idea, ”

But you’ll pretend that despite the sea levels being higher that you need to have evidence that higher seas will be further inland?

58. #58 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

Wow, now you are just demonstrating your lack of thoughtfulness. I earlier asked for evidence of the effects of SLR. You’ve offered Sandy. I’ve suggested that from what little I know, there seem to be some questions over how much AGW derived SLR may have contributed. Where is your evidence, beyond your say so?

59. #59 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

And to repeat, this is for Wow. Had Sandy occurred at low tide, would we have seen the surge travel as far? yes or no?

60. #60 Wow
December 31, 2012

” I earlier asked for evidence of the effects of SLR.”

And now you’re asking for the effects must be mostly caused by SLR.

Or are you back to “it must have an effect”?

Where is the evidence beyond my say so that waves go further inland at high tide than low tide?

December 31, 2012

Lotharsson, would not the effects of the storm surge depend on many factors?

Yep, as everyone agrees. But only some here get confused by the concept of assessing the impact of a single factor even though others are also operating. Curiously it only seems to be people “skeptical” of the impact of sea level rise who are thus confused, yourself being one of them:

Where is the physical evidence that Sandy was exacerbated by the current sea level?

That’s precisely why I stipulated in my question to chameleon all other factors being equal. Perhaps you could take a crack at answering it?

And then you might wonder why you and chameleon are demanding physical evidence for something that obviously (ahem) flows from our extensive understanding of how liquid water behaves. (The rest of us already have a good idea of why.)

62. #62 Wow
December 31, 2012

Had Sandy occurred with Sea Level Decrease, would we have seen the surge travel less far?

Yes or no?

63. #63 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

Weasel on Wow. “Where is the evidence beyond my say so that waves go further inland at high tide than low tide?” When you can’t answer a simple question, it speaks volumes. I didn’t say they do, it’s simply the first question that pops into my mind when you claim Sea Level is a significant contributory factor.

Perhaps waves do not, perhaps they do, perhaps SLR had a substantial influence. I don’t know. You claim it did. So, where is your evidence?

64. #64 Wow
December 31, 2012

““Where is the evidence beyond my say so that waves go further inland at high tide than low tide?” When you can’t answer a simple question, it speaks volumes”

Speaks volumes.

65. #65 Wow
December 31, 2012

Are you, therefore, denying that waves travel further inland at high tide than they do at low tide?

66. #66 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

Lotharsson, I am happy to admit Sandy was exacerbated by SLR if that is what happened. I am just asking for evidence, else all I have is your say so. I have no stake either way.

67. #67 Wow
December 31, 2012

“when you claim Sea Level is a significant contributory factor. ”

Where did I claim it a significant contributory factor?

Where did I give ANY indication of the relative magnitude of its contribution?

I merely claimed IT HAD CONTRIBUTED.

68. #68 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

“Are you, therefore, denying that waves travel further inland at high tide than they do at low tide?”

No. But I do not know. Was the tide full high, and was it a record height for the region?

69. #69 Wow
December 31, 2012

“I am just asking for evidence, else all I have is your say so.”

Is this because you don’t know how water moves?

70. #70 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

So Wow, it could have had an effect, but just as likely insignificant?

71. #71 David B. Benson
December 31, 2012

spangled drongo — You have missed the main point. The geoid is quite close to the equipotential surface for gravity. Just off Taiwan the sea level is over 100 meters above the geoid. Around Indonesia it is 50–60 meters above the geoid. Peru is about 0 meters above the geoid.

A highly accurate gravity direction indicator would show uphill travel going east.

72. #72 Wow
December 31, 2012

““Are you, therefore, denying that waves travel further inland at high tide than they do at low tide?”

No. But I do not know.”

Then you are saying you don’t know how fluids work.

I suggest getting a tray and filling it with water and splashing around.

See what happens when you put more or less water in the tray and splash around in it.

73. #73 Wow
December 31, 2012

“but just as likely insignificant?”

Just as likely as what?

All you demanded was an effect.

You got one.

Then you started whining on about wanting a major effect.

December 31, 2012

BFPM, if you’re asking about Sandy because you are seeking evidence of impacts due to sea level rise, why was the earlier comment about the expensive current (and even more expensive future) impacts in Florida insufficient?

75. #75 Wow
December 31, 2012

And why must insignificant mean “no effect”?

If you aren’t claiming that, then what was the point of “insignificant”? You wanted an effect. One was given.

December 31, 2012

Perhaps waves do not, perhaps they do,…

We’ve now reached absolutely ludicrous outright denial. Either that, or BFPM has tied himself up in knots and doesn’t know how it happened.

77. #77 David B. Benson
December 31, 2012

The running argument here appears to me to be
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/entertainment/26-Apr-2012/dull-to-twin-with-boring

Anthropogenic SLR is so far so little as to have contributed only slightly to Frankstorm’s Sandy’s impact in New Jersey and New York. An important contributiion was due to the state of the tide, which was a spring tide to boot.

78. #78 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

Lotharsson it wasn’t insuffiecient. And really I do apologise for not having the time to investigate. But i am not in the habit of accepting claims without seeing the evidence and asking questions about that evidence. A quick search showed me that the coast there is notorious for subsidence and sinkholes and has serious issues with aquifer depletion. Sea level has indeed risen quickly there according to the tide gauges, but again, I have no idea of the extent to which coastal geography is contributing. To blindly accept that AGW driven SLR is the sole or major cause would be to just accept what you (or Mike in fact) says. I don’t do that.

79. #79 Wow
December 31, 2012

I know. It’s gabberflasting, isn’t it.

80. #80 Wow
December 31, 2012

“Anthropogenic SLR is so far so little as to have contributed only slightly to Frankstorm’s Sandy’s impact in New Jersey and New York.”

Wasn’t part of the demand that it be a significant change compared to the size of the change.

Mind you, a 40cm sea level rise times the 1000km range of the storm and a 40km fetch at 1kg/cc makes the change of mass of water fetched up by Sandy 10^10kg of water.

If you think that isn’t significant, try lifting it.

81. #81 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

“We’ve now reached absolutely ludicrous outright denial. Either that, or BFPM has tied himself up in knots and doesn’t know how it happened.”

OK, so now I realise I am dealing complete clowns.

It’s simple, let me use little words. Wow claims Sandy is an example of a real world effect of AGW driven SLR.
None is provided.
I am insulted by claims that a higher sea level must mean waves go further inland.
I do not know. I can state what I think is obvious, but I may be wrong. So I am realistically cautious not to claim beyond my knowledge.
I ask a reasonable question. if sea level has an effect, then surely the actual sea level, or tide height, at the time is the main factor in that effect?
No-one wants to hazard a guess.
OK…

82. #82 Wow
December 31, 2012

“But i am not in the habit of accepting claims without seeing the evidence and asking questions about that evidence.”

Getting through the day must be hell for you.

Every day needing proof that the clock really IS telling you the correct time. Proof that the statement about the healthy breakfast is correct. That when you’re told the boss wants to see you, demanding evidence in the peer reviewed literature that this is so.

Then proof that this “reality” really is there…

83. #83 Wow
December 31, 2012

“Wow claims Sandy is an example of a real world effect of AGW driven SLR.
None is provided.”

Evidence of what?

That seawater from a higher level moves further inland????

84. #84 Richard Simons
December 31, 2012

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

Oh dear! The point I was making went completely over your head. No-one who has any understanding of measurement refers to a percent change using a scale with an arbitrary baseline. If you insist on referring to a percentage change in temperature, the only scale that makes sense is to use Kelvin, in which case we have an average temperature of 289K and a range from lowest to highest of 100K (using your figures), or about 35%.

Alternatively, we could treat sea level in the same way as you considered temperature and say that mean sea level is 5m (using an arbitrary base line, just as you used an arbitrary baseline for temperature) and a maximum range from lowest trough to highest peak of, say, 15m. This gives a percentage change in sea level of 300%.

You think this is stupid? It is exactly the same procedure as you used for temperature change. Now do you understand why you are not taken seriously?

December 31, 2012

To blindly accept that AGW driven SLR is the sole or major cause would be to just accept what you (or Mike in fact) says.

And to blindly accept that unicorns shitting in the sea is the sole or major cause would be to just accept what someone said too.

In other words, all snark aside, I’m not seeing anyone who’s saying what you claim has been said. Feel free to provide a quote if you can find one – and then we’ll all spend a minute repudiating it if it makes you happier.

(And I’m still seeing you apparently ignore the earlier reported Florida impacts of SLR complete with some rough (and very significant) \$ estimates. That should have been a strong pointer to very expensive future impacts across the globe, and very serious impacts in places that have a lot less money available to attempt to defend against it.)

86. #86 Wow
December 31, 2012

“if sea level has an effect, then surely the actual sea level, or tide height, at the time is the main factor in that effect?”

“If sea level has an effect, then the actual sea level has an effect.”

See how ridiculous you are when the redundant clauses are peeled away?

You’re asking for evidence that water at a higher level will move further inland.

Unless you don’t know how liquids and solids behave and how you can tell the difference between “sea floor” and “landmass”,

87. #87 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

I shall stop there. Clearly it’s pointless.

Wow, you have a special brand of stupidity. This one is a pearler:
“Every day needing proof that the clock really IS telling you the correct time.”

Seriously, is English a second or third language for you? Good grief man, try thinking before you type.

88. #88 Wow
December 31, 2012

“I shall stop there. Clearly it’s pointless.”

Being pointless has not stopped you before.

Is the problem that people are calling you out on your pointless goalpost shifts and whiny demands about proof of how water flows and what “sea level rise” means?

““Every day needing proof that the clock really IS telling you the correct time.”

Seriously, is English a second or third language for you”

No, that sentence is perfectly adequate English.

Where is the grammatical error in it?

December 31, 2012

I am insulted by claims that a higher sea level must mean waves go further inland.

Then get used to feeling insulted. Your “realisation” that you are dealing with complete clowns is misdirected. You are clearly the complete clown here.

if sea level has an effect, then surely the actual sea level, or tide height, at the time is the main factor in that effect?

Wait, wait, I can do this too!

[BoltForPM mode on]”I am insulted by the claim that tide height must be the main factor in whether waves go further inland!”[BoltForPM mode off].

Your belief about tide height is so obviously correct that no-one thinks questioning it is sane.

Your disbelief about sea level rise – which affects tide height, and therefore is based on THE SAME UNDERSTANDING as you have about tide height – is so obviously incorrect that your equivocation about it makes you look extremely foolish.

You can’t coherently have that belief and that lack of belief at the same time. They are two mutually exclusive answers TO THE SAME QUESTION.

90. #90 Wow
December 31, 2012

Even better, bolthead says they don’t know if tides cause a difference!

91. #91 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

Lotharsson: “In other words, all snark aside, I’m not seeing anyone who’s saying what you claim has been said. Feel free to provide a quote if you can find one – and then we’ll all spend a minute repudiating it if it makes you happier.”

I asked for evidence of AGW driven accelerating SLR physically impacting a coastline. I specifically asked for a case where coastal geography was not a confounding factor.

In the case of Miami, it seems that sea level rise is having an effect, and it seems to be quite serious. That said, there ARE confounding factors, and it does appear that a steady rate of sea level rise would in itself have far reaching consequences.

On the whole, it seems to me that the coastline in that region is definitely being affected by SLR.

I would like to have more time to read more deeply, but I agree that SLR is impacting that coastline.

92. #92 Wow
December 31, 2012

“I asked for evidence of AGW driven accelerating SLR physically impacting a coastline”

If that’s what you want now, then the sea level having risen has caused the coastline to retreat inland.

93. #93 David B. Benson
December 31, 2012

Wow — Anthropogenic SLR is 40 cm there? Have you a link to an appropriate research paper which establishes that?

94. #94 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

OK, so you can’t explain something simply. Let me ask again.

Was the predicted tide height at the time of the storm surge higher than at any previous time in the past 100 years? If not, then SLR is not necessarily the culprit.

For SLR to have been a contributor, the actual tide height needed to have been higher than it might otherwise have been.

Why is that an incorrect assumption?

95. #95 Wow
December 31, 2012

“Was the predicted tide height at the time of the storm surge higher than at any previous time in the past 100 years?”

Irrelevant.

The only proof needed is that there is more seawater in the oceans at that time.

If there was, then sea level rise made the sea level higher than if it hadn’t risen.

For proof of sea levels rising see above the line. There’s a nice little graph.

96. #96 Wow
December 31, 2012

“Wow — Anthropogenic SLR is 40 cm there? ”

No, didn’t claim that.

97. #97 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012

Wow, is that really what you want to say? I did suggest you think before typing…

“The only proof needed is that there is more seawater in the oceans at that time.

If there was, then sea level rise made the sea level higher than if it hadn’t risen.

For proof of sea levels rising see above the line. There’s a nice little graph.”

98. #98 Wow
December 31, 2012

“For SLR to have been a contributor, the actual tide height needed to have been higher than it might otherwise have been.”

Incorrect.

If someone took performance enhancing drugs then their effect occurred WHETHER OR NOT they broke their personal best.

99. #99 Bolt for PM
December 31, 2012