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 31, 2012

    “Wow, is that really what you want to say?”

    Yes.

    Unlike you, I type what I mean to say, not whatever bollocks is convenient at the time.

    Are you having trouble working out that sea levels rising from glacier melt and thermal expansion causes there to be more ocean everywhere than if there had been no such increase in volume?

    Is “increased volume” giving you problems?

  2. #2 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “But you are arguing that they did indeed achieve a PB AND their drugs helped.”

    No I’m not.

    Not even in the analogous.

    I’m saying, as I’ve always said and you’ve always misrepresented, that the sea level rise caused the water to go further inland than it would have without it.

  3. #3 Bolt for PM
    December 31, 2012

    Wow digs on. Can he get any deeper? Who knows, my bet is yes. me, I gotta run away and do something else with my life for a while.

    Toodle pip.

  4. #4 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “I gotta run away and do something else with my life for a while.”

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8

    Unable to make a reply? Speaks volumes.

  5. #5 David B. Benson
    December 31, 2012

    Yes, from
    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
    I make out about 40 cm.

    And since I haven’t the slightest (currently) about how to determine the additional storm surge effects from that I’ll just state that

    I stand corrected.

  6. #6 Richard Simons
    December 31, 2012

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

    Chameleon: And Lotharsson pointed out that his method of presenting the results is not valid. Why do you consider Humlum’s method of presentation to be valid? You need to go through Lotharsson’s criticisms and refute each of them to justify your claim. Simply repeating the claim is not adequate.

    But even the people who put them together always make sure they have caveats and disclaimers about their certainty (as they should).

    This is not correct. WUWT and other denialist sites rarely present any statistical analysis beyond crude means and regressions. They are probably not even aware that cherry-picking the dates invalidates the statistics that they didn’t bother doing.

  7. #7 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “I make out about 40 cm.”

    I just glanced and copied. I didn’t attribute the change to anything specific. No specific insight or claim, just that 40cm of rise (no cause given because I don’t care: any and all is fine!) does X under conditions Y and Z.

    Someone working in oceanography may be able to more correctly calculate the extra water washed ashore by Sandy if it had not risen, but I was purely illustrating.

    Even if the change had been 1mm, that would still be ~10^7kg of water thrown ashore.

  8. #8 David B. Benson
    December 31, 2012

    Wow — Roger that.

    Thank you.

  9. #9 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    No worries.

  10. #10 Wow
    December 31, 2012

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

    Chameleon: And Lotharsson pointed out that his method of presenting the results is not valid.”

    Indeed. To assess them as both equally valid, chammy here has to assess how valid a presentation of the facts as displayed by the data are for these approaches and show them basically equivalent.

    If chammy cannot say how valid any of these approaches are, then the statement is solely one of ignorance: he doesn’t know how valid any of the presentations are and is ASSUMING equal validity.

    Given that “but equally valid ways” wasn’t necessary and is, apparently, unknown by the commenter, it should have been left off: do not make claims you cannot know.

  11. #11 Bolt for PM
    December 31, 2012

    Wow, I have no idea how relevant this is, but iot’
    s a look at the tide data for the site you referred to for mean sea level at The Battery. data seems only to go back to 1995 however, so it’d be interesting to see earlier numbers.

    High tide (predicted) 29/30 October 2012:
    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/cgi-bin-mp/data_plot.cgi?mins=&datum=6&unit=1&stn=8518750&bdate=20121029&edate=20121030&data_type=wl&relative=&type=Historic%20Tide%20Data&shift=g&plot_size=large&relative=&wl_sensor_hist=W1&plot_backup=

    High tide (predicted) 29/30 October 1995:
    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/cgi-bin-mp/data_plot.cgi?mins=&datum=6&unit=1&stn=8518750&bdate=19951029&edate=19951030&data_type=wl&relative=&type=Historic%20Tide%20Data&shift=g&plot_size=large&relative=&wl_sensor_hist=W1&plot_backup=

    As best I can tell, the predicted heights for that particular tide is around 4.6 feet or so. I don’t see any significantly higher sea level at the time of Sandy…

    But that IS only over 17 years. And I may have got these plots hopelessly wrong.

  12. #12 David B. Benson
    December 31, 2012

    Bolt for PM — Use my previously posted link to The Battery data from NOAA which goes back to 1856. All the SLR since that time (and I claim from one hunded years earlier) is anthropogenic in origin.

  13. #13 Neil White
    December 31, 2012

    Bolt for PM

    What point are you trying to make? Comparing a day or two of tide predictions years apart tells you nothing. To make any sense of this at all you would have to know where these times were in the Spring/Neap and nodal cycles at least.

    The graph pointed to by David Benson a few posts before is much more meaningful. The individual data points would be monthly averages (monthly averaging is an effective way of removing the tidal signal), and then the seasonal (annual + semi-annual) signal was removed, which makes it easier to see what is going on.

    As you would expect, the trend is a bit higher than the global mean over this period because the land is falling in this area due to GIA (New York was on the forebulge in front of the Laurentide Ice Sheet during the last Ice Age).

  14. #14 chameleon
    December 31, 2012

    Richard S,
    Humlum has clearly outlined his methodology.
    He plotted it against IPCC work.
    At no point have I claimed it was better or worse.
    That was not why I linked them.
    Lotharsson clearly feels the need to attack the messenger and the message.
    I guess if Humlum wants to argue with Lotharsson he would be more than capable of doing so.
    He certainly doesn’t need me to defend his work and I suspect that he is blissfully unaware that Lotharsson doesn’t like it.
    Most of Lotharsson’s claims are attended by personal insults which I can’t really be bothered with.
    He claims he has irrefutable evidence that there is something wrong with Humlum in moderation.
    Maybe the moderator at this site doesn’t think it’s a good idea to mount a personal attack on a credentialed scientist?
    That sort of behaviour has a nasty habit of back firing.

  15. #15 Lotharsson
    December 31, 2012

    Humlum has clearly outlined his methodology.

    Really? And (assuming for the sake of argument that’s accurate) that’s enough to make it “equally valid” to you?

    At no point have I claimed it was better or worse.

    Comprehension and Logic Fail.

    My critique and Richard S’s comment was NOT based on you claiming that and does not depend on you having claimed that. They were based on your repeated claim that it was an example of an “equally valid” “presentation of data”.

    He claims he has irrefutable evidence that there is something wrong with Humlum in moderation.

    Comprehension Fail.

    “Irrefutable” != “even more devastating”.

    “Critique of specific works” != “something wrong with Humlum”.

    Do you deliberately choose to repeatedly miss the point, or do you genuinely not get it?

    Maybe the moderator at this site doesn’t think it’s a good idea to mount a personal attack on a credentialed scientist?

    1) Comments with more than a couple of hyperlinks are automatically diverted to a moderation queue.

    2) Credentialed scientists who make unsupported claims are the subject of any number of posts by the site owner.

    3) STILL trying to bring “credentials” into the mix?! Aren’t they irrelevant if Humlum’s work stands on its own?

    Most of Lotharsson’s claims are attended by personal insults which I can’t really be bothered with.

    If you find critiques of your claims and logic insulting, you might want to consider changing them to something that is more defensible. That particular ball’s in your court.

  16. #16 Lotharsson
    December 31, 2012

    OK, since (a) Chameleon still cites Humlum’s credentials as if that makes his work somehow “equally valid”, and (b) it’s holiday season and who knows how much time Tim has for moderating, let me post my earlier comment broken up into pieces so they’ll post immediately.

    Part 1 of 4 (if things go well).

    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.

  17. #17 Lotharsson
    December 31, 2012

    Part 2 of 4.

    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.

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    December 31, 2012

    Part 3 of 4.

    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 itself.

  19. #19 Lotharsson
    December 31, 2012

    Part 4 of 4.

    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 – and will continue to insist that Humlum’s work is “equally valid”?)

  20. #20 Bolt for PM
    December 31, 2012

    Neil White, you ask: “What point are you trying to make? ”

    The point is simple but I believe I have made an elementary error regarding tide heights. So, let me explain my reasoning (bearing in mind I know nothing about tides or stats or hurricanes – all I am doing is asking questions about claims).

    As I understand it, the SLR in those graphs is a mean sea level over time. That is, an average of sea levels, ie it isn’t the highest tide, or the lowest tide. If we had a benchmark on the land, eg SD’s Chevron Island thing, we could see the highest point reached by a tide and the lowest point. The average may or may not be in the middle because tides vary considerably.

    Now, average sea level may have risen, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that peak tide heights have risen the same. The average may have been affected by more frequent medium height tides, or less ‘low’ low tides. If the increase in average sea level is say 400mm, or about 16″, that shouldn’t mean that all high tides are 16″ higher. Some may be, some may not be.

    So, at the time of Sandy, what was the actual level of the sea by the absolute benchmark of the land it washes against? Not what was its average, but its actual height?

    Now I showed some tide heights, but I suspect I am wrong there because on reflection, I will guess tide heights are measured against some relative sea level, not against the land. Otherwise we would see an increase in predicted tide heights over time. But if it were measured against land, and the high tide of October 29 2012 were less than other high tide heights, how could you argue sea level rise caused anything? Because it’s the actual sea level relative to the land at the time of the surge, not the average on a graph.

    Or am I just missing the point entirely?

  21. #21 Lotharsson
    December 31, 2012

    BFPM, if you cycle down a hill, even if it’s not the fastest you’ve ever cycled down that particular hill, did the hill increase your speed or not?

  22. #22 Neil White
    December 31, 2012

    Bolt for PM

    “As I understand it, the SLR in those graphs is a mean sea level over time. That is, an average of sea levels, ie it isn’t the highest tide, or the lowest tide.”

    Which graphs do you mean? The blue lines on the two graphs you linked to are of tidal predictions every few (15??) minutes based on the long-term tidal regime.The red ‘+’ symbols on the 2012 graph are the actual sea-level heights measured at the tide gauge at similar frequency, and are relative to the tide gauge zero, which is fixed with respect to the land.

    “The average may or may not be in the middle because tides vary considerably.”

    In the long term the average will be in the middle. The tides vary, but are a sum of sinusoids of different frequencies, phases and amplitudes. This is dictated by the astronomical (Sun and Moon) forcing and local (e.g coastline configuration) effects.

    “Now, average sea level may have risen, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that peak tide heights have risen the same.”

    In general the mean, low and high tides will all move together. There is a very small effect on the tidal range with changes in the mean water depth (e.g. from SLR), but that is negligible for this purpose.

    “So, at the time of Sandy, what was the actual level of the sea by the absolute benchmark of the land it washes against? Not what was its average, but its actual height?”

    As above, it is shown by the red ‘+’ symbols on the 2012 graph that you linked to.

    “Now I showed some tide heights, but I suspect I am wrong there because on reflection, I will guess tide heights are measured against some relative sea level, not against the land. Otherwise we would see an increase in predicted tide heights over time. But if it were measured against land, and the high tide of October 29 2012 were less than other high tide heights, how could you argue sea level rise caused anything? Because it’s the actual sea level relative to the land at the time of the surge, not the average on a graph.”

    This is very confusingly put. Tide heights are measured relatve to a local (fixed with respect to the land) benchmark. Where possible they are then corrected for vertical land movement (e.g. GIA) before being used in large scale regional and global analyses.

    It is clear, even from analyses of 20th century tide gauge data, that extreme events of a given height are becoming more frequent due to the long-term increase in sea level. The contribution of this to the damage from Sandy was probably fairly minimal because the Sandy storm surge was such a whopper, but the effect is being seen in many places, and will get worse.

  23. #23 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “Wow, I have no idea how relevant this is, but iot’”

    Completely irrelevant.

    Just because the glaciers have melted and put their water in the ocean doesn’t mean that the tide will reduce to keep the sea level static.

    So why, when you’re demanding proof of SLR effects on the coast, you keep bringing up tides?

    Sea level rise isn’t tides.

  24. #24 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    If you had magically taken one in ten of every water molecule in the ocean away to the moon, would Sandy have flooded New York?

  25. #25 Bolt for PM
    December 31, 2012

    Neil White, you have confused me by suggesting tide heights are measured relative to a fixed benchmark on land. If that’s so, then my point is valid. Wow, if my point is valid, then you are being remarkably dim.

    The claim is that SLR has contributed to Sandy’s effect. I asked for evidence. In return, it was claimed that because sea level is higher, then Sandy’s surge was higher. This was echoed earlier by another commenter who claimed that the extra height of sea level was what caused the barriers to be overflown.

    This means that the claim rests on the sea level at the time of the hurricane surge being higher than it would have been without AGW driven SLR.

    But we cannot know this by referring to an average. We must compare actual tide heights for that time and place.

    What would the actual tide height have been on 29 October 2012 without Sandy? Well, it was predicted to be about 4.7 feet. Is that higher than the same time in 1995? Apparently not. So, if the maximum sea level, that is high tide, for that point on the coast is largely the same at times 15 years apart, how can you say that SLR is shown by Sandy’s effects?

  26. #26 Bolt for PM
    December 31, 2012

    Wow, you say:

    “Completely irrelevant.
    Just because the glaciers have melted and put their water in the ocean doesn’t mean that the tide will reduce to keep the sea level static.
    So why, when you’re demanding proof of SLR effects on the coast, you keep bringing up tides?
    Sea level rise isn’t tides.”

    How can you say that? It is the actual physical height of the sea level relative to the land at the time of the storm surge that counts. And THAT is tides. If Sandy struck at low tide, its effect would have been less. because sea level was lower. Isn’t that the case?

  27. #27 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “How can you say that?”

    Because SLR isn’t tides.

  28. #28 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “Neil White, you have confused me by suggesting tide heights are measured relative to a fixed benchmark on land.”

    You have pretended confustion because you know you’re only reading part of what he wrote.

  29. #29 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    ” And THAT is tides”

    How can you say that?

  30. #30 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    So when there were no permanent polar ice caps and the seas 20-100m higher, are you saying that the sea level at New York at high tide would be the same level then as now?

  31. #31 Bolt for PM
    December 31, 2012

    Wow, I seriously need you to explain to me why I am wrong. I am quite OK with being wrong, but I don’t understand what you are saying.

    ‘Sea level’ is an average struck from data about the height of the sea relative to the land. That height changes due to tides. So tides appear to me to be a factor in determining ‘sea level’.

    Now, the sea level at any given time at The Battery will be different depending on the state of the tide. That is, the sea level relative to the land is determined by the state of the tide.

    At hight tide, it may be 4.7 feet. At low tide it may be 2 feet. There is a difference. A storm surge will therefore be higher or lower depending on the state of the tide. Hence the fears expressed at the time that Sandy might have struck at high tide.

    So. If the physical height of high tide at that time in October 2012 was the same as that in October 1995, how can you say that the sea level was higher and exacerbated Sandy’s surge?

  32. #32 Bolt for PM
    December 31, 2012

    “So when there were no permanent polar ice caps and the seas 20-100m higher, are you saying that the sea level at New York at high tide would be the same level then as now?”

    Don’t be silly.

    I showed you tide data for 1995 and 2012. they appear to be the same. That’s the physical reality.

  33. #33 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “Don’t be silly.”

    Does that mean you admit that SEA LEVEL CHANGES changes where the tide gets to?

    Or are you merely wanting me not to point out how ridiculous you are?

  34. #34 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “Wow, I seriously need you to explain to me why I am wrong.”

    That would require you LISTEN TO PEOPLE.

    Except you don’t.

    Ever.

    Now, the sea level at any given time at The Battery will be different depending on the sea level rise at that time.

    I.e. in 1850 it would have been 40cm lower.

    That means the sea level at any given time will be 40cm lower than it would have been if the sea hadn’t risen 40cm.

  35. #35 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    Why do you keep banging on about the tide?

    SLR isn’t tide.

  36. #36 Bolt for PM
    December 31, 2012

    “Does that mean you admit that SEA LEVEL CHANGES changes where the tide gets to?”

    I don’t have to admit anything. That is exactly my claim. If sea level rises, then the level of the sea at any point in the tidal cycle might presumably be higher. And that is how a storm surge might be higher.

    But IF the tide height is NOT higher, then we have to conclude that the sea level AT THE TIME IN QUESTION was not higher.

    I am not making any statement at all, I am merely asking a question. And showing you data. If I am wrong I’m wrong. But I need someone smarter than you to explain why.

  37. #37 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “I don’t have to admit anything.”

    You have to say what you mean, then.

  38. #38 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “But IF the tide height is NOT higher”

    THEN you have a different situation.

    SLR doesn’t cause tides and tides don’t cause SLR.

    If the tide is NOT higher, SLR still makes the sea level higher than if it didn’t exist.

  39. #39 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    But IF there had been no hurricane…

    But IF there had been an asteroid impact…

    But IF you stopped fanying around with irrelevant things, you’d have your whines responded to.

    However, the chances of you stopping fannying about are much much lower than an asteroid impact so fast that it travelled back in time to hit NY state when Sandy made landfall.

  40. #40 Bolt for PM
    December 31, 2012

    “SLR doesn’t cause tides and tides don’t cause SLR.”
    I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting tide height must reflect sea level.

    If the tide is NOT higher, SLR still makes the sea level higher than if it didn’t exist.”:
    The AVERAGE sea level may be higher, but if the actual high tide is not higher then physically the sea at high tide must be the same height.

    And that is my point. Sandy struck pretty near high tide. IF the high tide predicted for that time was largely the same as a typical high tide in 1970, then we can conclude that there was no discernible enhancement of the storm surge from SLR.

    That is not to say there IS no SLR, but the question to hand is, did SLR contribute to sandy’s storm surge.

  41. #41 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    If the hurricane were weaker. If the hurricane were stronger. If if if if if.

    NONE OF IT means that SLR had no effect on the result.

  42. #42 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “I am not suggesting that.”

    Yes you are by continuing to bollock on about tides when I’m explaining the effect of SLR.

    Tides are not SLR.

    I am suggesting sea level rise must reflect sea level.

    Why do you keep banging on about tides?

  43. #43 Bolt for PM
    December 31, 2012

    Funny how you cannot answer a direct question without all the crap. I think I’ll see what others have to say. Neil White seems to offer sensible comments, perhaps he can explain what mistake I am making.

    You on the other hand…

  44. #44 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “Sandy struck pretty near high tide.”

    Irrelevant to the effect of SLR on the damage Sandy did.

  45. #45 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    Funny how you cannot answer a direct question without all the crap.

    SLR is not tides and tides are not SLR.

    What is all this gobshite about tides?

    SLR means the sea level is higher.

    That is what “Rise” and “Sea Level” mean.

    Sandy occurred when there was SLR increasing the level of the sea and that effect happens no matter WHAT the tides are, the strength of the storm, shape of the coast or the price of tomatoes are.

    SLR means that there was a higher sea level than there would have been without it.

  46. #46 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    And I note that you still can’t say what you meant by “Don’t be silly”.

    Apparently you can claim what the hell you like and it’s up to everyone else to

    a) work out what the hell it is you claim
    b) work out what the hell you don’t understand
    c) find papers written about anything you don’t want to accept

  47. #47 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “perhaps he can explain what mistake I am making. ”

    This would require you read what he says rather than just edited highlights of what you think he ought to have said, daft twat.

  48. #48 Lionel A
    December 31, 2012

    Bolt4

    If you were a high jumper would jumping off a higher pad allow you to clear a higher bar, all other things being equal?

    As for Sandy’s link to AGW here is one paper that provides a link Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes.

    Now as for tides, is it not obvious that a higher sea level will lead to higher tides, all other things being equal?

    Try an experiment in your bath, that should help out although you will have to be creative in replicating the gravitational effect of the moon etc.

    When a wave is propagated in a body of water do the water molecules move long distances in the direction of the wave?

  49. #49 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    And if other things aren’t equal, you’re not talking about the effect of SLR, you’re talking about the effect of whatever else it is you’re changing.

    But the most recent dickhead doesn’t want to talk about SLR but wants to talk about tides because therefore there’s no SLR somehow.

  50. #50 Lotharsson
    December 31, 2012

    This was echoed earlier by another commenter who claimed that the extra height of sea level was what caused the barriers to be overflown.

    I don’t recall that being said about sea level rise, and you’ve spent a lot of time confusing how “sea level” in “sea level rise” is measured vs “water level at a given moment” so I suspect you haven’t captured the nuance of what was said.

    Try using different terms in your head for “how much water is in the ocean” which defines the average water level vs “how high is the water at NY at a specific time”. You could call them “A” and “L”.

    Think of “A” as measuring the average water level over a long enough period to average out the effect of short term variations in water level – things like tides and waves and storm surges. Think of “L” as the sum of “A” and those short term variations – tides, waves, storm surges.If it helps call those variations – not the resulting water level, just how big the ups and downs are – as “V”. In other words L = A + V. This makes it clear that the short term variations V are “riding on top of” the base level established by A.

    When scientists say that SLR has occurred, they mean that A has increased. This increase generally doesn’t directly affect V, but that means it does directly affect L because L = A + V. If the SLR hadn’t occurred, then L would be lower by the amount of the SLR.

    If that helps and you’re still unclear, try going back and answer my question about cycling down a hill. Or Lionel’s question about the high jumper. Perhaps because you’ve been confusing two different things with similar names, your logic has been incorrect. You’re trying to infer some conclusion about the change in A over a long time period by looking at one or two values of L separated by a relatively short period. That’s invalid on several counts. For example one or two values don’t give you anywhere near enough data to separate out the A from the V.

  51. #51 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “I don’t recall that being said about sea level rise, and you’ve spent a lot of time confusing how “sea level” in “sea level rise” is measured vs “water level at a given moment””

    Their M.O. is entirely that.

    Make up shit about what others claim.
    Deliberately confuse terms and go off on tangets to avoid clearly stating anything.
    Pretend that because there’s no clarity (because of their efforts) they can refuse to accept reality.

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    December 31, 2012

    To try and hammer the point home:

    IF the high tide predicted for that time was largely the same as a typical high tide in 1970, then we can conclude that there was no discernible enhancement of the storm surge from SLR.

    Nope.

    The predicted high tide at two different points in time when other factors that affect tides were not more or less exactly the same gives you no information about sea level rise. Neither does the actual high tide.

    To see this, imagine that “V” (from my previous comment) is affected by three different factors. For example (and not claiming this is an accurate model), imagine V = F * G + H.

    Now you’ve observed L at time t1 and at time t2 (and you’ve got predictions for L at those times). Can you derive an equation that shows you what A at t1 was compared to A at t2? No – you don’t have enough data. V varies quite widely throughout the day and also quite a lot on different timescales (e.g. the lunar cycle) so a mere three factors (F, G, H) may not even be enough to describe it.

    However continuing with this example, imagine for the sake of argument an oracle knew all things, and thus knew that:

    At t1, F = 10, G = 20, H = 132
    At t2, F = 12, G = 16, H = 105

    And for the sake of argument, imagine that the predicted L for both t1 and t2 was exactly the same. What does that tell the oracle about A at t1 vs at t2? Despite L being the same, once it does the arithmetic A at t2 is 35 greater than at t1. But you’re not the oracle and don’t know F/G/H – and oracles tend not to tell. You concluded that A was much the same but the oracle points out that your conclusion is incorrect, therefore your methodology is faulty.

    You can’t use observations or predictions of L at two points in time to infer changes in A because that doesn’t give enough information. (And even if you had measurements for those factors, given that all real world measurements involve uncertainty, you’d typically get better results measuring A than trying to measure the other factors and then inferring A from them.)

    Now what is most likely correct – I haven’t checked – is that any sea level rise at NY between 1970 and 2012 was much much less than the height of the storm surge itself. So while any SLR over that period MUST have contributed to the impact, it may not have contributed very much. But it also means that SLR has already contributed to every impactful storm landfall, and as it increases further impacts from future storms will get larger.

  53. #53 Bolt for PM
    December 31, 2012

    Lotharsson, I noted earlier that I may be mistaken about how tides are measured. I read your lengthy waffle above but it seems to me you are missing what I am saying.

    I assumed that a high tide is measured against the land, so that a 4.7 foot high tide means that the sea level is 4.7 feet measured against a land based benchmark. Neil White though seems to be saying that my assumption was correct. I am still not arguing that it is, I do not know.

    So, forgetting all matters pertaining to SLR, let’s nail down what I am thinking and see how that works.

    Question 1. Is the measured point that a tide reaches at high tide calculated with respect to a fixed benchmark on the land? Yes or no?

    If the answer is yes, as Neil White seems to indicate above, then we can go on to question 2.

    If a high tide in 1970 reaches 4.7 feet, that is the height relative to the land at that time.

    Question 2: Would you agree then that if no other tide in 1970 reached 4.7 feet, then that tide represents the highest point the sea has reached at that coastline in 1970?

  54. #54 David B. Benson
    December 31, 2012

    Tide height is measured relative to a fixed point on land but given in terms of distance above or below ‘mean low tide’.

    This standard (and old fashioned) method takes into account neither SLR nor geostacy.

  55. #55 chameleon
    December 31, 2012

    Happy new year folks,
    Lotharsson,
    I have read your links. Mostly from sceptical science.
    It is more of same and neither proves or disproves anything with any realistic certainty.
    No offense, but it looks more like ‘my daddy is bigger than your daddy’.
    It is an argument about HOW different people with different perspectives have presented the data.
    I note that Humlum agrees that he made an error in one data set that he later corrected. Also note that his critic still wasn’t satisfied.
    And despite the argument, Humlum does have peer reviewed publications.
    The links you have supplied are from blog sites and are not peer reviewed publications.
    The criticisms in some respects are valid, especially the over simplified extrapolations, which I had already highlighted didn’t prove much of anything.
    I also highlighted that Humlum is not the only scientist who has done this.
    I note a similar extrapolative graph in those links that demonstrate yet another conclusion.
    You don’t seem to understand that I have no problem with that.

  56. #56 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    Bolt you stupid fucker, the status of the tide does not change the underlying sea level rise.

  57. #57 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “It is more of same and neither proves or disproves anything with any realistic certainty.”

    You are not competent to make that call, chammy.

    Indeed you’re merely stating this and have no proof of that.

  58. #58 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “No offense, but it looks more like ‘my daddy is bigger than your daddy’”

    No, it’s more “My car mechanic is a better bet to ask about YOUR CAR ENGINE than your decision to ask a hairdresser”.

  59. #59 chameleon
    December 31, 2012

    The reason I have no problem with it BTW is because it is really only time and updating with ‘real’ data that will be the final judge about who is ‘right’.
    You may have noticed that Humlum points this out on several occasions.
    He doesn’t claim that his work is the best way or the only way to present the data.

  60. #60 chameleon
    December 31, 2012

    Goodness me Wow!
    I hope you treat real people a little better in your real life?

  61. #61 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    And I hope you’re not a complete cunt in real life, chammy.

  62. #62 Wow
    December 31, 2012

    “The reason I have no problem with it BTW is because it is”

    denying the reality of the world to create an answer you like.

    FTFY.

  63. #63 chameleon
    January 1, 2013

    Hmmm?
    I can only feel sorry for you Wow,
    hurling insults and crude swearing probably doesn’t win you many friends.
    Cheer up Wow. It’s a new year.
    I hope you find it a happy one.
    The world didn’t end in 2012. Some things we worried about came to pass but equally or hopefully more so for many, most of our worries and fears were handled.
    Let’s hope on the life ledger, the balance tips to positive for as many as possible.

  64. #64 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    Aaaw.

    Doesn’t that make you nice.

    Oh, no, it makes you a lying twat. Sorry. Easy mistake to make.

  65. #65 chameleon
    January 1, 2013

    Or don’t :-)
    Happy new year nonetheless :-)

  66. #66 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    Nah, I’d prefer timewasting trolls shrivel up and die.

    You know, throw out the trash rather than pretend to be nice to the scum of the planet.

  67. #67 chameleon
    January 1, 2013

    Considering by your own definition, trolls are rude and dismissive.
    I think you may have sentenced yourself to death Wow.
    I harbour no personal ill will to you or anyone else for 2013.
    I am not responsible for your attitude Wow, neither is anyone else who you hurl insults at.
    Your attitude is your responsibilty and yours alone.
    Cheers
    Chameleon

  68. #68 David B. Benson
    January 1, 2013

    This thread has turned to the right:
    http://www.fotolia.com/id/41003550

  69. #69 chameleon
    January 1, 2013

    Chuckle :-)
    I agree David B.
    Happy new year to you.

  70. #70 David B. Benson
    January 1, 2013

    Some sea level rise consequences from Fairfax Climate Watch:
    http://climatewatch.typepad.com/blog/2012/12/estimated-future-ice-loss-rates-updated-dec-2012.html
    which uses conservative (in the engineering sense) estimates of future SLR.

    The growth of sea level is actually not exponential but rather sigmoid, i.e., S-shaped. Otherwise, the article is well done.

  71. #71 Lotharsson
    January 1, 2013

    It is more of same …

    Yes, it is! You finally realised your claims are cra … oh, wait.

    … and neither proves or disproves anything with any realistic certainty.

    Called it!

    It proves with realistic certainty that too much of what Humlum claims is bad science to trust anything he says that hasn’t survived post-publication peer review. In other words your presumption or assertion of “equally valid” is demonstrably unjustified – even if my earlier critiques did not exist. It also suggests Humlum is not just incompetent but deliberately trying to produce work with a certain result no matter how shoddy his “argument” is as a result.

    For anyone who hasn’t read the links yet his use of “DIFF12″ which removes linear trends in order to make claims about the trend is shatteringly incompetent – it’s almost exactly what Carter, de Freitas and McLean did in their debacle of a paper a year or two ago, a paper that made many climate scientist’s list of “Worst 5 papers of all time in Climate Science”. That suggests he doesn’t know what he’s doing as a climate scientist, or he doesn’t care.

    Similarly his curve fitting exercise fits cycles to observed data and then roughly matches their periods to those of various solar system bodies and argues there may be a causal link. It’s hokum, and there was another paper like that in the “Worst 5″ lists too.

    So firstly one gets the very strong impression you don’t [want to] know good science from bad, even when it’s pointed out to you. And secondly you STILL haven’t rebutted any of the issues identified with Humlum’s work which is necessary to argue that it illustrate “different but equally valid presentations”. Humlum is almost a poster child for “different but NOT equally valid, although carefully designed to give that impression to the gullible non-scientific public”.

    And despite the argument, Humlum does have peer reviewed publications.

    So does McLean – see above! It was absolutely ripped to shreds after publication which is the part of peer review that carries the most weight. Having such a paper – as Humlum does – on your resume degrades your scientific reputation. It’s not relevant to your argument.

    (And most of Humlum’s peer-reviewed papers don’t appear to be in climate science. That may explain why he’s so bad at it.)

    But wait – you claim his non-peer reviewed stuff is “different but equally valid”! How can that be if you’re going to worry about what is peer-reviewed and what is not? You can’t have it both ways – do you subscribe to his reports being “equally valid” or dismiss them because they’re not peer-reviewed?

    The links you have supplied are from blog sites and are not peer reviewed publications.

    True, but many of their criticisms either (a) rely on peer-reviewed publications or (b) point out easily verifiable errors and issues with Humlum’s work. You don’t seem to realise that critique is asymmetrical. It’s much harder to establish a claim as substantiated (by surviving extensive post-publication peer review) than it is to point out where it goes wrong (although WUWT is a case study in how to make critiques that are wrong but mislead the gullible…) Some issues are so egregious or so obvious that they don’t need to get through peer review for reasonable 3rd parties with a modicum of competence to see that they have validity. And some of the critiquing blog posts turn into peer-reviewed published rebuttals over time too.

    He doesn’t claim that his work is the best way or the only way to present the data.

    And that’s disingenuous bullshit on his part and on yours – but I’m not all surprised you promote it because that’s pretty much your own modus operandi. “I wasn’t making claims, honest, I was just presenting a different but equally valid view”. Notice the embedded claim in that quote? You might pretend not to but everyone else sees it.

    …only time and updating with ‘real’ data that will be the final judge about who is ‘right’.

    Bullshit.

    Some claims are already clearly wrong, no matter how much you bury your head in the sand and call it night time. That includes practically every substantive claim you have made on this site from the very start.

    (And scare-quoting ‘real’ gives your game away. That in itself is a judgement of “not equally valid”, a judgement based on evidence to date that you are entirely incompetent to make.)

    We have to make decisions based on what we know, confidence intervals and all. We have more than enough real data – no scare quotes – to see there is a major problem. You are playing the foolish “high proofer” game, and have been all along.

  72. #72 Lotharsson
    January 1, 2013

    Considering by your own definition, trolls are rude and dismissive.

    Logic Fail.

    Dogs have four legs … therefore by your ‘logic’ that cow over there is a dog.

  73. #73 Richard Simons
    January 1, 2013

    No offense, but it looks more like ‘my daddy is bigger than your daddy’.

    I take this to mean that you are completely unable to support your claim that different ways of presenting the data, that lead to very different conclusions, are equally valid, but don’t have the honesty to say so.

    The reason I have no problem with it BTW is because it is really only time and updating with ‘real’ data that will be the final judge about who is ‘right’.

    So you have no problem with people doing faulty analysis and using it to promulgate nonsense. Then why did you come here?

  74. #74 chameleon
    January 1, 2013

    My apologies moderator,
    Posted wrong name and address from a different computer for the comment below:

    Richard S and Lotharsson,
    I suggest you could send an email to Humlum and take him to task on his analysis.
    I believe his contact details are on his website?
    It appears from one of Lotharsson’s links that Humlum is happy enough to reply and correct if an error is spotted.
    As far as I’m aware his work has been no more or no less criticised than others’.
    His list of papers in peer reviewed journals would indicate to me that he is quite well respected in the science world.
    Richard S seems convinced he is someone doing faulty analysis to promulgate nonsense?
    What in particular would the ‘promulgated nonsense’ be Richard?
    All of it?
    Some of it?
    I actually came here on a recommendation. I have since discovered from the same person that I misunderstood what I would find here.
    But it’s OK. Richard.
    It has been a bit of light entertainment in the holiday break.
    I’m not planning to make it a regular habit.

    So as I suggested, perhaps you need to take it up with Humlum?

  75. #75 spangled drongo
    January 1, 2013

    David BB, I am still waiting for you to confirm that you understand that the “100 meter hill” of ocean caused by the distortion in the geoid still represents level sea and that the world’s oceans are in fact flatter than a billiard table.

  76. #76 Lotharsson
    January 1, 2013

    I suggest you could send an email to Humlum and take him to task on his analysis.

    Nope. He’s your problem because you cited him as an example of “different but equally valid”. Do your own homework! You haven’t done any to date – and it shows, badly.

    (If he’s so amenable, and if one of the articles I linked to and you said you read didn’t point out that his “correction” to the serious error they pointed out was itself wrong, then surely you could write to him and get some better arguments from him, right?)

  77. #77 Lotharsson
    January 1, 2013

    As far as I’m aware his work has been no more or no less criticised than others’.

    Your argument from personal ignorance is duly noted.

    Your apparent ignorance that argument from personal ignorance is fallacious is also duly noted.

    What in particular would the ‘promulgated nonsense’ be Richard?

    I’m sure Richard will answer, but sheesh – you really didn’t comprehend most of the material at those links I provided, did you?

  78. #78 Lotharsson
    January 1, 2013

    I read your lengthy waffle above but it seems to me you are missing what I am saying.

    And I am sure you didn’t understand what I was saying and felt the need to dub it waffle. Perhaps you could try again. (Then again, no-one else has had any success trying several different ways to explain the same thing to you either.)

    Your moniker is aptly chosen – you have a conclusion you’re sure if correct, you just don’t quite know how to justify it with facts and logic yet but in the meantime you’ll assert it over and over again whilst casting aspersions at the intellect and knowledge of those who are pointing out the failings in the various iterations of your argument.

  79. #79 chameleon
    January 1, 2013

    No Lotharsson,
    It is most definitely you who has the problem with Humlum.
    I also found it strange that you thought I should say something about spangled earlier in this thread.
    He wasn’t being rude to me.
    If you thought he was being rude to you, why would you need me to say something about it?

  80. #80 bill
    January 1, 2013

    Spangly confirms that according to his lights not even 100m of SLR would not be an issue, as the ocean would still be flatter than his billiard table.

    This kind of idiocy has form among deniers. Dishonesty? Stupidity? Both? Whatever the explanation, it’s the level they have to sink to to make an argument…

  81. #81 bill
    January 1, 2013

    Spangly confirms that according to his lights not even 100m of SLR would not be an issue, as the ocean would still be flatter than his billiard table.

    Bah!

  82. #82 bill
    January 1, 2013

    In fact, a rise of a mere 2m in SLR would only increase the average depth of the ocean by a trace amount – 0.053%. This is a number suspiciously similar to the trace CO2 concentration that also represents no threat whatsoever. Therefore no conceivable harm could result.

    Next I’ll point out that any conceivable number of people dying in any such imaginary inundation would only ever amount to to an insignificant trace when considered against the global population as a whole – ditto for any financial consequences. So, still nothing to worry about!

    It’s always important to stay aloof from the fray, keep an open mind*, and maintain the broader perspective in these matters…

    *That squelchy, splatty sound you hear is only it falling out. Don’t be alarmed – this happens all the time (and therefore it cannot be harmful!) and no-one notices any difference in my reasoning anyway…

  83. #83 Lotharsson
    January 1, 2013

    It is most definitely you who has the problem with Humlum.

    I’ll take that as yet another implicit admission that you cannot justify your claim that his work(s) are “equally valid” but are not honest enough to say so.

  84. #84 chameleon
    January 1, 2013

    Lotharsson,
    take it any way you like.
    It is not my problem. I don’t really particularly care what you think of Humlum or me or anyone else.
    I know what Humlum does for a crust and he seems to be doing OK. I also don’t believe he’s all that concerned about your opinion of his work. But if you want to take him to task over it, you go for it. Good luck to you.
    As I commented to Wow.
    You alone are responsible for your attitude.

  85. #85 bill
    January 1, 2013

    Actually, my question to the Denial footsoldiers here is ‘why haven’t you made it? Why aren’t you on TV’.

    I mean, Fox regularly airs views as valid and as well-informed as your own, from folks every bit as qualified to speak on matters climatalogical as you are.

    And yet, here you are claiming that because the water always comes up to the pretty-well the same level on the side of your tinnie the oceans cannot be rising, or revealing that if only scientists would take heed of mark on a levee in just one south-Queensland river – I mean, how easy is that, people? – there’d be no need for any of this fancy-schmancy, and systematically-corrupted, satellite stuff – choice and Fox-worthy arguments all! – in relative obscurity!

    Seriously; do you lack drive, or something? I thought you were all entrepreneurs?

  86. #86 spangled drongo
    January 1, 2013

    Bill, I must say your Thickhead and Little Cuckoo impersonation is getting better anyway.

    Where are you hiding DBB?

    Bill has just shown he hasn’t got a clue.

    Have you?

  87. #87 Lotharsson
    January 1, 2013

    It is most definitely you who has the problem with Humlum.

    You keep telling me what I think. Interesting…

    Then again, you keep telling everyone here all sorts of things you can’t substantiate.

    But if you want to take him to task over it, you go for it.

    Well done! You entirely missed my point. You’re very good at it! I guess it’s better to miss it than admit being unable to address it.

  88. #88 Jeff Harvey
    January 1, 2013

    Here’s the crux of the matter: almost without exception, pretty well every scientist who is prominent as a climate change denier is on the academic fringe. In my opinion this includes Humlum, whose publication record, at best, is less the mediocre considering how long he’s been around.

    You can blather all you like, Chameleon, but that’s the long and short of it. And what really pisses me off, speaking as a scientist, is how much attention these mediocre scientists get on the right wing blogosphere; moreover, the fact that, for every article they publish somewhere, there are dozens of others that have very different conclusions.

    On the latter basis, chamey, what special gift in science imbues you with the ability to separate the strength of the vast majority of studies, many by scientists with real pedigree, from a few from scientists on the academic fringe? You claim that you and your hubby husband possess a scientific background. In what fields exactly? I am a population ecologist, and I know when I am stepping outside of my own field and wrongfully trying to step into the fields of others. The overwhelming view amongst statured scientists in the relevant field is that humans are forcing climate. Yet what I see amongst a small coterie of deniers lacking any relevant expertise on Deltoid is an attempt – albeit failing miserably – to emphasize the findings of a small number of pseudos whilst dismissing a far greater body of work by others with much more pedigree.

    On other threads the same ignorant posturing is evident. We have deniers like GSW, Duff and Karen continually failing to understand the concepts of scale and non-linear dynamics. They perpetually cite a few examples where some place on Earth is colder than normal or else where its recently snowed, as if determinism begins at t = 0. Of course its winter in the northern hemisphere! It snows! It still get cold! It may be cooler than normal in Brisbane! So the hell what?! I might just as well be saying that most of Europe has been bathed in near record warm temperatures for two weeks now (which is true) and that its expected to continue. The facts say this: warm weather records around the globe are being set at a ratio of 5:1 against cold weather records. This ratio has increased in a stepwise fashion over the past several decades. We can dispense with the puerility of talking about weather (a stochastic, non-linear process) with climatic trends (a much more linear deterministic linear process) if we go to the appropriate temporal scales. But these dolts aren’t scientists and don’t know the difference.

    The there was briefly GSW plugging a paper recently out in PLoS One suggesting that many species in Arctic biomes – meaning only mammals in the study – will benefit from warming. So here we have several fallacies being expounded: first, GSW has done what deniers always do: when the evidence suggests the human fingerprint on a process is becoming indelible, then argue that this process will benefit nature, and, by association, humanity. This is what the deniers are beginning to do more and more these days. Their denial is switching from denying the human fingerprint on the warming to argue that we should keep the warming going because it will be good for us and for the natural world. Its pure folly, of course: a crap shoot.

    The GSW-trumped PLoS paper focused on habitat generalists. But its been know for a long time that generalists across all trophic levels are far better adapted to rapid changes in local habitats. That’s nothing new. In North America the felling and fragmentation of the great primeval deciduous forests benefitted many species of habitat generalists: raccoons, red foxes, striped skunks, coyotes, eastern cottontails, white-tailed deer, and birds such as common grackles, brown-headed cowbirds, American robins and cardinals. Many of these species thrive on forest edges. What were deleteriously affected were many of the habitat specialists: red wolves (now a race of the eastern wolf), elk, mountain lions, ivory-billed woodpeckers, carolina parakeets, Bachman’s warblers, loggerhead shrikes, and many other species. Clear cutting vast swathes of the Amazon would undoubtedly benefit a small number of species, but adversely affect many more because habitat specialization is much more evident amongst tropical biota (they need to move around a lot less to find resources than their temperate counterparts and thus exhibit smaller geographic distributions).

    The PLoS paper thus says nothing new. The real concern amongst Arctic wildlife, and especially migrant birds, is what effects the rapid warming will have on the specialists. Polar Bears, contrary to GSWs kindergarten-level comments, are specialists, as are several species of seals and the walrus. This year, for the 4th time in the last decade, walruses were forced to seek terrestrial habitats late in the season owing to the record loss of Arctic sea ice. During the exodus to land, many younger individuals were crushed to death under the mass of these enormous pinnipeds.Polar bears are in serious trouble if the Arctic ice disappears in summer, there are no two ways about it. They are not terrestrial habitat generalists like Arctic foxes and wolverines, and neither is their prey.

    The last point is that the relationship between habitat loss and extinctions is not instantaneous. There are temporal lags that many take decades, or even centuries, to ripple through the system. The effects of habitat loss caused by forest destruction in Amazonia in the 1950s is probably still to be fully manifested on much of the regions biota, and may not be fully realized for another 100-200 years. Ditto for temperate ecosystems as a result of various anthropogenic processes. Climate change will be a major driver of extinctions. Attendant effects – such as acidification of the oceans, already as a result of the human combustion of fossil fuels – will also be an important contributor. Its just too bad that those trying to argue the net benefits of warming on the planet’s ecosystems don’t have a bloody clue about the field, for the most part. They rely on thin papers like the PLoS One article, or else comments from people like Judith Curry, who have no background in the field at all.

  89. #89 bill
    January 1, 2013

    I’d argue, Jeff, that Denial has been a great opportunity, for scientists and media-hacks alike, for the truly mediocre – if not the outrightly dreadful (think Morano, Monckton, Delingpole) – to get the attention that they crave without having to go through the tedious process of building up evidence and being correct, and all that.

    I mean, any movement that can make heroes out of, say, Joe Bastardi and Senator Inhofe, is clearly a form of intellectual sheltered-workshop. The irony is that these folks are hiding behind a form of the very ‘political-correctness’ they vociferously reject when it favour others; they stridently maintain that their absurd and unevidenced opinions are the equal of the merely competent and qualified.

  90. #90 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    “It is most definitely you who has the problem with Humlum.”

    And that problem is Humlum is wrong.

    Or is it now that due to you PC brigade deniers insistence that we have to accept incorrect and wrong statements and proclamations?

    It was bad enough when you PCBaggers insisted that we don’t teach children to spell in case they get hurt when told they are wrong about something.

    Now you’re insisting we do the same mollycoddling to flipping ADULTS!

  91. #91 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    “It is not my problem.”

    And this is the denier trope in a nutshell.

    AGW isn’t going to hit them (they hope) in their lifetime.

    It’s not their problem.

    However, changes are scary for the ill educated. It requires them to do something different.

    Worse, this change requires that they admit that maybe their actions in hindsight were not the best thought out. And admitting even this smidgeon of blam is anathema to them.

    It isn’t their problem when it’s AGW, but it IS their problem when it comes to doing something about it.

    So they bitch and moan about how they did nothing wrong, were entirely right in their denial and were just being cautious (about their own current expenditure, not the future).

    And deny, deny, deny.

  92. #92 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    “It’s always important to stay aloof from the fray, keep an open mind*, and maintain the broader perspective in these matters…”

    Until, of course, they find themselves neck deep in the doo-doo.

    You’ll be deafend by the screams for government help then.

  93. #93 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    “So you have no problem with people doing faulty analysis and using it to promulgate nonsense. Then why did you come here?”

    To promulgate nonsense doing faulty analysis of course.

    Deniers want there to remain “unanswered questions” so that they can whine to government about how there’s still uncertainty therefore they certainly shouldn’t do anything about AGW.

  94. #94 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    It’s amusing how chammy thinks that all papers are “equally valid” but wants proving that the AGW proofs are valid.

  95. #95 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    Chammy, here’s a presentation that you would think equally valid:

    The following example uses division by zero to “prove” that 2 = 1, but can be modified to prove that any number equals any other number.

    1. Let a and b be equal non-zero quantities

    a = b

    2. Multiply through by a

    a^2 = ab

    3. Subtract b^2

    a^2 – b^2 = ab – b^2

    4. Factor both sides

    (a – b)(a + b) = b(a – b)

    5. Divide out (a – b)

    a + b = b

    6. Observing that a = b

    b + b = b

    7. Combine like terms on the left

    2b = b

    8. Divide by the non-zero b

    2 = 1

    Q.E.D.

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

    It presents a proof that there is only one number: 1.

    Pop along to a maths class and tell them this.

  96. #96 Wow
    January 1, 2013

    “Considering by your own definition, trolls are rude and dismissive.”

    WRONG!

    Go on, show me where I defined trolls as rude and dismissive?

    Can’t can you.

    You’re “presenting an alternative presentation” here pretending that things are said that have not been said.

    This is called “lying your arse off” and is why the entire human race will become more human when you’ve been shot dead and buried.

  97. #97 Jeff Harvey
    January 1, 2013

    Bill, I totally agree. More than that, denial has also given many academics on the fringe the opportunity of becoming well-known as deniers in the public domain. Look at people like Ball, Carter, Plimer, Soon, Baliunas and others with pretty poor resumes when it comes to peer-reviewed papers and citations of their published work. Given the paucity of qualified scientists in the denial camp, they would otherwise be total unknowns in science. But being deniers enables them to step out of the shadows and gain attention.

  98. #98 spangled drongo
    January 1, 2013

    Dear oh dear JH, you make me weep. When you consensual “scientists” DENY that a 100 m bump in the geoid is not part of the normal earth’s surface and won’t admit that it is part of the normal level ocean clearly indicates your dishonesty and lack of credibility.

  99. #99 spangled drongo
    January 1, 2013

    And if you stopped bleating long enough about your critics cred to accept some fundamentals, you might improve your own:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

  100. #100 Bernard J.
    January 1, 2013

    Drongo, you have homework.

Current ye@r *