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 Richard Simons
    January 1, 2013

    Richard S seems convinced he is someone doing faulty analysis to promulgate nonsense?

    I am sorry if you got that impression. I was responding to your comment “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’. ” which I took to mean “I don’t care who is talking nonsense and who is not, because in a hundred years we will know for sure” and using this as your excuse for not assessing the veracity of what anyone writes (provided, of course, that they have credentials that impress you and are arguing in the correct direction). It seems to me that you are struggling to avoid giving any serious thought to the criticisms that Lotharsson raised and the ones he linked to.

  2. #2 bill
    January 1, 2013

    Spangly baby, you’re the one that insists it’s all a billiard table smooth lift floor that raises and lowers everywhere simultaneously, hence your chalk mark on a south Queensland river bank disproves global SLR.

    Hence I hardly think you’re in a position to accuse others of being dense.

  3. #3 Richard Simons
    January 1, 2013

    Chameleon: you said of Humlum’s Climate4you ‘paper’

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

    If it is so clear, perhaps you could tell me how he decided to put the breaks in the regression of temperature against time? What level of significance did he attribute to the final ‘negative’ section of the graph?

  4. #4 Chameleon
    January 2, 2013

    Richard S
    Perhaps you could ask Humlum how he decided to do it that way rather than apparently just quoting something from the SS link ?
    If you are asking me for my thoughts on the presentation and why I linked Humlum’s work (and of course I could have just re used the work at the start of this thread, as BoltFPM did, or randomly picked from the tens of thousands of other publicly available work) then please let me know.
    I would prefer to know which time series graphs you are specifically referring to and also which particular breaks.
    If it helps at all, I have already stated that I don’t think extrapolating SL out 100 years from a shorter data set actually proves or disproves anything much at all.
    I also noted that Humlum is not the only scientists who has done this.
    He used 3 years of the current available SL data (from exactly the same sources as the IPCC uses) plotted out the running average and then extrapolated it based on those averages.
    It is a valid statistical exercise, but as Humlum himself notes it would of course have to be updated with further ‘real time’ data to test whether the observed trend is a realistic observation.
    Despite the accusations otherwise, I am not attempting to deny anything at all or attempting to frighten anyone with the use of the word ‘real’.
    I have to confess I have never before heard any scientist or mathematician or satistician claim that the use of the term ‘real’ or ‘real time data’ is a scare tactic.
    Lotharsson has gob smacked me with that one.
    Today I am preparing to return to the ‘real’ world after a very pleasant holiday break (I know, I apologise, I used that scare tactic again :-) )
    Consequently, I will not have much time to amuse myself by visiting this blog site.
    I find myself agreeing with David B that this thread has turned right anyway.
    I must say before I get back to reality (again!) that I think Wow is an absolute gem. No wonder he is protected by the moderator :-)
    He can put several posts together that all argue with himself and which hurl insults like a gattling gun. It is absolutely priceless and ironic reading.
    I have grown fond of Lotarsson as well.
    He likes to read something extra between the lines from fairly basic statements and then base his rebuttals on claiming that others have some type of issue with understanding logic and or science. He even throws in cows and dogs to prove his point (which I guess has a little more class than Wow’s attempts with nucleic acids and messing with numbers :-) )
    The other thing I find very endearing about Lotharsson is he is very predictable about telling people who he wants to argue with what they SHOULD be doing when they argue with him. If they don’t comply, he then does it himself.
    It’s very funny reading what Lotharsson claims I SHOULD have said or which tactic I SHOULD have employed based on the world according to Lotharsson :-)
    But anyway folks, thanks for the holiday entertainment but I regret to inform you that I will no longer have the time to play with you.
    It has been fun.
    Happy 2013 :-)

  5. #5 bill
    January 2, 2013

    I think Pratchett’s theory regarding multiple exclamation marks and sanity applies equally to smilies.

    Please don’t hesitate not to come back! :-)

    See, I may be being rude, and Chammy may be being smug, facetious, manipulative, and goading :-) – on top of the underlying denseness :-), but as long as we’re putting lots of these things in : -), it’s all fine…

  6. #6 spangled drongo
    January 2, 2013

    So Bern, you finally came up with a retro reply with some outside assistance?

    If you refuse to understand how multihull instability is the result of pos feedback there’s not much I can do for you. Seeing as how you insist on these distractions you better go and discuss it with you mates.

    Likewise with the Ross/Lempriere mark. We are familiar with CSIRO and BoM “adjustments” and in which direction they always travel but as I said earlier rather than dance around your silly maypole let’s just give CSIRO the BotD and go with 13 cms SLR over 171 years. We should be thankful that they only claimed that much.

    “How the fuck am I verballing you?”

    I have never mentioned surges in relation to calculating or assessing king tide heights or SLR. In fact I have gone to great lengths to show the exact opposite that my obs were based only on periods free of surge and flood.

    You absolutely verballed me! And your verballing is the reverse of what I say. If you can’t understand that then you do have rocks in your head.

    And the rest of your comment is just more hand waving.

    BTW BJ, do you have an opinion on whether the geoid irregularities are SLR as David BB has claimed or part of the level ocean?

  7. #7 David B. Benson
    January 2, 2013

    spangled drongo — You misunderstand. Start with some basics:
    http://kartoweb.itc.nl/geometrics/reference%20surfaces/refsurf.html
    then move on to wind and currents.

  8. #8 David B. Benson
    January 2, 2013
  9. #9 Lotharsson
    January 2, 2013

    Perhaps you could ask Humlum how he decided to do it that way rather than apparently just quoting something from the SS link ?

    You cited it as “equally valid”. And the fact that a criticism is “quoting someone else” has nothing to do with validity, just like your claim that it is “equally valid” has nothing to do with validity.

    You’re really not very good at this “logic” and “evidence” thing.

    … I could have just … randomly picked from the tens of thousands of other publicly available work…

    That’s very revealing. In order to demonstrate “different presentations of data” can be “equally valid” you say you could have randomly picked? Wow! So…in your head, apparently, the mere existence of a claim makes it “equally valid”?

    … I have already stated that I don’t think extrapolating SL out 100 years from a shorter data set actually proves or disproves anything much at all.

    So what you’re saying is that Humlum’s sea level extrapolation method IS NOT EQUALLY VALID with the more rigourous scientific methods used in mainstream climate science?

    Tell me, when you argue against yourself, which side usually wins?

    It is a valid statistical exercise, but as Humlum himself notes it would of course have to be updated with further ‘real time’ data to test whether the observed trend is a realistic observation.

    But it’s not intended to be viewed as merely a “statistical exercise”, as anyone who passed High School English can see. How many readers do you think turn up at his site to learn a little statistics? And it beautifully illustrates my initial point about Humlum’s work – he misleads his viewers by engaging in these kinds of “exercises” when he knows – or ought to know – full well that much better methods for projection exist.

    I have to confess I have never before heard any scientist or mathematician or satistician claim that the use of the term ‘real’ or ‘real time data’ is a scare tactic.

    Comprehension Fail #NNN. I said nothing of the sort.

    Are you seriously alleging that you don’t know what ‘scare quotes’ mean when used in written English? If so, you really ought to stop using them until you do.

    He can put several posts together that all argue with himself…

    You project like a lighthouse.

    He even throws in cows and dogs to prove his point…

    Ah, so you actually understood the point that analogy illustrated – but weren’t honest enough to withdraw your false claim? Noted.

    … I regret to inform you that I will no longer have the time to play with you.

    Second time lucky. Anyone betting on a return? (I am, but I hope to be wrong.)

  10. #10 Chameleon
    January 2, 2013

    Lotharsson January 1st:
    “And scare-quoting ‘real’ gives your game away.”
    So Lotharsson, I am happy for you to say that’s not what you meant, but Lotharsson; that is most certainly what you wrote.
    Just so Lotharsson can feel justified re his predictions, I decided to also point out that I forgot the other Lotharsson trait I have become fond of and may miss.
    I forgot to mention Loth appears to believe he has the authority to mark other people’s comments as a pass or fail as if he is playing school teacher or lecturer. (Maybe he is?)
    It’s been a little while since I finished university Loth and I have discovered that people in the ‘real’ world are not really that concerned about a fail from a teacher or a lecturer. Most of them are far more concerned about doing something that is useful and practical and that creates them an income and a decent standard of living for their families. That’s why they got an education in the first place.
    Many of them run their own businesses and are not even answerable to a boss! (let alone a teacher or lecturer.)
    They are perfectly capable of judging for themselves and taking responsibility for their mistakes as well as their successes without the need of a pass or fail mark from some self appointed someone else.

  11. #11 bill
    January 2, 2013

    We are familiar with CSIRO and BoM “adjustments” and in which direction they always travel but as I said earlier rather than dance around your silly maypole let’s just give CSIRO the BotD and go with 13 cms SLR over 171 years. We should be thankful that they only claimed that much.

    Bog-standard Jo Nova-ite conspiracy theorist defames nation’s premier scientific institutions on the basis of his dinghy expertise in single Gold Coast rivulet. Film at 11…

  12. #12 bill
    January 2, 2013

    Chammy, now, don’t be gauche. Sod off and stay sodded off. Ta.

  13. #13 Richard Simons
    January 2, 2013

    Perhaps you could ask Humlum how he decided to do it that way rather than apparently just quoting something from the SS link ?

    I am asking you because you said that the methods seemed to be well-described. As it stands, the piece would be unpublishable in any reputable science journal.

    I would prefer to know which time series graphs you are specifically referring to and also which particular breaks.

    The graphs on pp 20 and 21 of the link you provided. He draws three regression lines on each graph, corresponding to sections labelled ‘negative’, ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ but I can find no explanation of how he determined the bounds of each section.

    He used 3 years of the current available SL data (from exactly the same sources as the IPCC uses) plotted out the running average and then extrapolated it based on those averages.
    It is a valid statistical exercise,

    Given the variability of the data, it is not a reasonable procedure to use (I’m not sure what you mean by ‘valid’). Did he present the confidence limits to the regression? Did he allow for autocorrelation in the data? It is you who is saying his methods are suitable. It is up to you to justify the claim, not up to me to try to find something that almost certainly does not exist.

  14. #14 spangled drongo
    January 2, 2013

    David BB, I didn’t ask you to to supply another thumbnail [dipped in tar] sketch of the surface of the earth compared to a reference point as used by satellites. I asked you, in effect, when you put to sea and it is calm and at rest, do you consider it is LEVEL or do you consider you are going up or down hill as per the surface of the geoid?

    IOW, NOT LEVEL?

    As long as you or anyone else here doesn’t seem to be able to comprehend this simple question your collective chances of ever getting to first base on the SLR question are very slim.

  15. #15 bill
    January 2, 2013

    Undulating is the new level! You’re funny, Spangly…

  16. #16 Anthony David
    January 2, 2013

    Did the conversation go off course when the acronym SLR was introduced, when it is in fact MSLR?

  17. #17 spangled drongo
    January 2, 2013

    Bill, at least that’s an answer. Tick one up for bill.

    Bill = NOT LEVEL.

  18. #18 Bernard J.
    January 2, 2013

    So Bern, you finally came up with a retro reply with some outside assistance?

    “Finally”?

    I posted my reply before 4:00 pm on 30 December 2012, a few hours after your post that appears immediately before mine. My post was held up in moderation for a day or so, but it’s been sitting there the whole time.

    And there was no “outside assistance” – the work is all mine.

    If you refuse to understand how multihull instability is the result of pos feedback there’s not much I can do for you.

    Idiot old man, I am not saying that “multihull instability” is not the result of “positive feedback”. I said that it needn’t be a result of positive feedback, and where it is it’s a more appropriate metaphor than a monohull for the manner in which climate changes – the latter point which you have assiduously avoided, by the way…

    And can we stop playing with your multihull/monohull sideshow distraction? The point of all this is that your river wall tide heights are not appropriate to be used as proxies for sea level rise, and you persistently refuse to address the many substantive points that I and others have many in refutation of your claim.

    Likewise with the Ross/Lempriere mark. We are familiar with CSIRO and BoM “adjustments” and in which direction they always travel but as I said earlier rather than dance around your silly maypole let’s just give CSIRO the BotD and go with 13 cms SLR over 171 years. We should be thankful that they only claimed that much.

    Meaningless drivel.

    I showed you how John Daly was SCREAMINGLY wrong about sea level, and you’ve avoided all response because you know that I sank his boat and yours. Daly FUBARed big time, and I have yet to see you respond to my demonstration of this.

    I am also waiting to hear why you don’t agree with the only comment of Daly’s that I think is valid – that:

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

    [Emboldened emphasis mine.]

    If your hero John Daly wouldn’t measure sea level in an estuary, why do you persist in claiming that it’s possible?

    I have never mentioned surges in relation to calculating or assessing king tide heights or SLR. In fact I have gone to great lengths to show the exact opposite that my obs were based only on periods free of surge and flood.

    How many times must a person rub your nose in your shit before you realise that it came from your own arse?

    You said on 22 February 2010:

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

    1) You were talking about the “king tide” height.

    2) You said that the “flood” height in 1974 was 1.5 metres above the “king tide” mark.

    3) You said that “externals” increase highest astronomical tides.

    4) Further to point 3, you said that “this rise was possibly all due to the cyclone and sea surge. Not the flood.”

    5) Your exclusion of the flood as a reason for the 1.5 metre height over the mark on your river wall thus attributes all of that height to “the cyclone and sea surge.”

    In other words you directly contradict your claim that:

    I have never mentioned surges in relation to calculating or assessing king tide heights

    because on 22 February 2010 you are specifically laying responsibility for the river height on the sea surge.

    However, if you stick by your latest comment that:

    I have never mentioned surges in relation to calculating or assessing king tide heights or SLR. In fact I have gone to great lengths to show the exact opposite that my obs were based only on periods free of surge and flood.

    then how do you explain that your comment about the ’74 king tide height explicitly notes both flood and surge, even though you attribute all the effect to surge because your reasoning was that flood had no impact because:

    “…the current was still running UPSTREAM at its peak. IOW this rise was possibly all due to the cyclone and sea surge. Not the flood.

    I’m not verballing you – you are verballing you.

    So, once more form the top:

    1) Do you understand that the damming of the Nerang River will have affected over time the height of tides at your river wall?

    2) Do you understand that the alteration of the river characteristics of the Nerang River via bank engineering, canal development, terrestrial drainage networks, and similar will have affected over time the height of tides at your river wall?

    3) Do you understand that the alteration of the estuarine environment through dredging, sand bank shifting, mouth modification and similar will have affected over time the height of tides at your river wall?

    4) Do you understand that the local meteorology, and most specifically barometric pressure, will have affected over time the height of tides at your river wall?

    5) Do you understand that the prevailing strength and direction of regional ocean currents will have affected over time the height of tides at your river wall?

    6) Do you understand how the very location of your river wall mark, located as it is in the Nerang River, will have been compromised by its distance from and its shielding from the open ocean, and that in concert with the aforementioned points your river wall mark is compromised in determining anything remotely resembling a proxy for sea level, and especially for sea level rise?

    7) Do you understand that John Daly’s hypothesis (that land movement accounts for the fact that Lempreire’s mark is nowhere near his contemporary mean sea level) is contradicted by the “evidence” that Daly offers as proof?

    8) Do you understand that following on from Daly’s nonsensical reasoning, Watts, Codling, Goddard, Tallbloke and the rest based on specious evidence their comments that there’s been no sea level rise?

    9) Do you understand that for the last three years you have been assiduously and desperately avoiding all refutations, rebuttals, and sundry contradictions of your fallacious claims and your pseudoscience, and that such is evident to everyone reading bar those denialists with ideological aversions to the consensus that physics, climatology and oceanography have it correct?

    10) Do you understand that no matter how much you wish that the truth were otherwise, It’s still warming, the sea is still rising, and that if we don’t act immediately and urgently to mitigate these impact we will be leaving a profoundly, seriously negative legacy for future generations?

  19. #19 spangled drongo
    January 2, 2013

    AD you are right but as I have said often up thread, the average person doesn’t witness MSL, it is usually only the highest tide that can be casually observed for effect and as these haven’t increased in my NOTW [but have actually been reducing] for the last ~ 70 years, there is nothing happening with SLR, acceleratingly or otherwise.

  20. #20 David B. Benson
    January 2, 2013

    When I put to sea it was in a 10 meter sailboat; it wasn’t calm and I was constantly going up and down.

    I suppose that has little to do with interpreting the graph at the start of this long thread. I have already explained how to correctly analyze the data. I believe it has been correctly noted that around 1900 CE SLR was about 1 mm/yr and is now about 3 mm/yr.

    That value will certainly continue to increase. I have previously posted on some of the consequences for this century, using a conservative assumption; conservative in the engineering sense.

    But on the fine point about the geoid, no, even if it were calm and waveless the plumb bob would (almost) never point straight towards the center of the globe. One would need an extremely sensitive instrument to detect that.

  21. #21 Lotharsson
    January 2, 2013

    I am happy for you to say that’s not what you meant, but Lotharsson; that is most certainly what you wrote.

    That is indeed what I wrote. The fact that you reiterate your miscomprehension (even after it has been pointed out to you) doesn’t make your miscomprehension accurate.

    So, as I asked before: do you know what a scare quote implies? In other words, do you understand the difference in meaning between real data and ‘real’ data? If that’s too challenging, perhaps you could explain why you chose to use the unnecessary quotes just like scare quotes are used.

    They are perfectly capable of judging for themselves…

    …but that doesn’t mean they are competent at it, as you amply illustrate – and as readers here can judge for themselves.

  22. #22 Lotharsson
    January 2, 2013

    …or do you consider you are going up or down hill as per the surface of the geoid?

    “Up or down hill” as referenced against what?

    The geoid by definition is the surface which is “level” at each point as measured by the gravity vector at each point. As the first link pointed out:

    This surface is called the Geoid. The plumb line through any surface point is always perpendicular to it.

  23. #23 spangled drongo
    January 2, 2013

    “defames nation’s premier scientific institutions”

    Yeah, what’s the world coming to, eh?

    Some typical SLR adjustments for dribbling bill. Just look at the graphs:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/sea_level_not_rising.pdf

  24. #24 spangled drongo
    January 2, 2013

    ““Up or down hill” as referenced against what?”

    You can use a plumb bob or a spirit level, Lothe.

    Or even a clear plastic tube with water in it.

    Or a theodolite. Or a dumpy level.

    Whatever turns you on.

  25. #25 bill
    January 2, 2013

    Anthony David – a discussion at Deltoid go off course? Surely you jest?

    So, Spangly, if we allow you to redefine seriously undulating as ‘level’ – bearing in mind I don’t think anyone’s even mentioned the 8km equatorial ocean bulge yet! – does that mean that you’ll then insist that those undulations are ‘locked in’ (this being your conception of ‘level’), and SLR must, to be real, then lift all boats equally from that point, so to speak?

    That’s, um, absurd.

    Ironically, then we’d be back to insisting – as so many of your fellow-travellers do – that if the temperature hasn’t risen in, say, Des Moines, Iowa, or Dunedin, NZ, then there is no global warming…

    And, if you’re not – well, what is your point, exactly? ‘Captious’ is the word that comes to mind.

    (I wish I could remember where I saw a video that highlighted that one of the reasons we know about Greenland’s contribution to SLR is that the oceans are rising most strongly as a result at specific points well away from Greenland itself, and not in its immediate vicinity. Fascinatingly counter-intuitive! Anyone remember it?)

  26. #26 Neil White
    January 2, 2013

    Spangled Drongo

    “Just look at the graphs:”

    You’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel now, aren’t you! This even includes the (in)famous tilted graph and his hand-drawn graph and other garbage about the Maldives which are passed off as “science” to the gullible. What a hoot!

    And hosted by such a reliable source too!

    Having said that might I try to bring a bit of clarity to this “discussion” about geoids, slopes etc. The geoid is, in effect the shape of the Earth in a gravitational sense – that is, it is the equipotential surface of the Earth’s gravity field that most nearly matches the mean sea surface over the oceans (it is also defined over land and is an important reference surface over land too). So, while it departs from the ellipsoid that it is referenced to by up to about +/- 100 metres, it is, in effect a ‘level surface’ for all normal purposes.

    Gosh, I seem to be supporting Spangled Drongo! But I’ll fix that now!

    If you look at the fourth graph down at: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
    you get an idea of how variable sea level is over the globe. Note the very low trend in the bit of ocean near Spangled Drongo’s river site. The movies further down the page also illustrate this.

    Don’t take any notice of Morner on satellite altimetry (or anything else for that matter).

  27. #27 Neil White
    January 2, 2013

    Bill

    Have a look at:
    http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/24-2_tamisiea.html

    There is a youtube video of Jerry Mitrovica talking about this stuff, which is what you might be thinking of (sorry, I don’t have the link to hand). Jerry Mitrovica is the other author of the paper linked to above.

    That volume of The Oceanography Magazine is a special issue on sea level, and has a number of articles which may be of interest to some who are commenting here. All are freely downloadable.

  28. #28 Chameleon
    January 2, 2013

    Scare quotes?
    Seriously?
    Last time I checked they were called ‘quotation marks’ which can also be used thus:
    ” ”
    They’re usually used to separate or highlight a particular word or to ‘quote’ what someone said or point out that word is meant to be ‘removed’ in meaning from another word or to ‘highlight’ a title plus a few other uses.
    I seriously did not know that they could be used to ‘scare’ anyone!
    I guess I could have bothered to figure out how to use the ‘bold’ at this blog but in some cases that could arguably look even ‘scarier’ :-)
    In this instance it meant ‘real’ data as opposed to ‘projected’ or ‘predicted’.
    Does that help clear up the misunderstanding Lotharsson?
    I certainly did not intend to indicate that ‘real’ or, if you prefer, “real” was meant to be scary or ‘scare quoted’ (whatever that actually means)
    And I’m now wondering what that has to do with anything anyway.
    But I will ‘predict’ that you will no doubt let me know.

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    January 2, 2013

    Last time I checked they were called ‘quotation marks’ …

    And they can be used to indicate a quotation, although double quotes are far more common, but you weren’t using them that way.

    Single quotes can also be used to highlight terms that are being defined or which have a special definition that the reader needs their attention drawn to – which again doesn’t correspond with your usage.

    I seriously did not know that they could be used to ‘scare’ anyone!

    Rather than Google you would much rather persist in bayoneting that strawman! (Hint: scaring someone is not the purpose of scare quotes.)

    In this instance it meant ‘real’ data as opposed to ‘projected’ or ‘predicted’.

    Fair enough. You really should stop using them when they can be interpreted as scare quotes then. It doesn’t come across as meaning what you intended.

    In that case, we already have plenty of real data that indicate some of the causes of sea level rise are fairly well understood, and accordingly there’s going to be more and more as the climate warms further. What we don’t know is how strongly some other influences will contribute – IIRC the real data from the last few decades have been contributing more than has been anticipated by the physical models.

    Humlum’s statistical extrapolation is (in comparison) a methodology with no physical basis, and (without having time to check) I suspect he is projecting substantially less sea level rise than the methodologies that rely on physics do. His extrapolation is thus very unlikely to be confirmed in future as a good long term predictor. Ignoring what we actually know from physics – indeed, going against it – is almost always folly.

  30. #30 Jeff Harvey
    January 2, 2013

    Sea level rise is just one aspect of the symptoms of anthropogenic climate change; there are a vast number of others. This makes we wonder why Chameleon and SD appear set on flogging this one and only horse. What about ther myriad other effects? On food webs and ecosystems? On the natural economy? There’s ample empirical evidence already showing that the rather modest level of warming so far is already having effects on nature, and that these effectgs whgen synergized with other anthropogenic stressors should be of profound concern to society.

    By the way, I checked up Ole Humlum on the Web of Science and his resume is exactly as I predicted: mediocre. 49 publications since 1982, with an h-factor of 18 and only 800-odd citations. He also attended an alternate climate change denial meeting at Copenhagen in 2009, which was apparently organized by some lunatics on the far right. The usual clowns were all there. It never fails to amaze me how so-called serious climate-chnage sceptics tend to hang out with the most sordid of company….

  31. #31 chameleon
    January 2, 2013

    Ummm Jeff?
    Did you happen to notice the title and content of this particular post?

  32. #32 chameleon
    January 2, 2013

    And Lotharsson,
    of course I was using them that way.
    I had no idea that they were used to ‘scare’.

  33. #33 spangled drongo
    January 2, 2013

    “So, while it departs from the ellipsoid that it is referenced to by up to about +/- 100 metres, it is, in effect a ‘level surface’ for all normal purposes”

    Neil White, thanks for that bit of common sense.

    And that 4th graph down is what I have been trying to tell you-all about for days.

    THAT is the only fluctuating surface level of the sea!

    Over the world’s oceans it is less than the equivalent 0.01 of a human hair [ 1 micron] over the length of a billiard table.

    IOW it is ~ one hundred times flatter than a billiard table which shows to go just how flat and agressively in equilibrium our world’s oceans really are.

    So that if local SLs have not risen but actually reduced in Moreton Bay over ~ 70 years, there cannot be SLR in the rest of the world, accelerating or otherwise.

    QED

  34. #34 Lotharsson
    January 2, 2013

    of course I was using them that way.

    “Of course” is of course obvious to you in your mind, but not to most of your readers!

    I had no idea that they were used to ‘scare’.

    If you’re trying to scare quote the word “scare” you’re half way there. However you need to find a claim or attribute that someone else asserts is valid, not one they disavow.

  35. #35 Lotharsson
    January 2, 2013

    IOW it is ~ one hundred times flatter than a billiard table which shows to go just how flat and agressively in equilibrium our world’s oceans really are. … QED.

    QER – Quite Easily Refuted.

    Your analogy is irrelevant to your claim. It doesn’t matter how relatively flat sea levels are over the entire surface whether you express it as a fraction or a percentage. What matters is the range of sea levels trends over the globe.

    Speaking of which:

    …that 4th graph down is what I have been trying to tell you-all about for days.

    And, as always, it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    Near Indonesia that graph shows somewhere around a 10mm per year sea level rise trend over almost two decades, and in some other parts of the globe it’s about -3mm/year.

    13mm per year divergence * 18 years = 234mm relative change between two points on the globe in less than two decades.

    Your observations of “no rise” at one point on the globe, assuming for the sake of argument that they are accurate, are (based on the graph you now approvingly cite) entirely consistent with 10mm per year rise elsewhere, never mind an average rise across the globe with some parts rising more than others (and some falling a little).

    And yet you still insist that cannot happen.

  36. #36 Wow
    January 2, 2013

    “““Up or down hill” as referenced against what?”

    You can use a plumb bob or a spirit level, Lothe.”

    A plumb bob won’t tell you up or down hill, spankers.

  37. #37 Wow
    January 2, 2013

    “AD you are right but as I have said often up thread, the average person doesn’t witness MSL”

    The average person doesn’t witness the sphericity of the earth either.

    Are you a FLAT EARTHER????

  38. #38 Wow
    January 2, 2013

    “Richard S
    Perhaps you could ask Humlum how he decided to do it that way”

    So you don’ t know, despite you claiming it clearly descrived, how Humlum did this.

    How, then, do you know they are “equally valid” as you claim?

    Is it because you are equally clueless about what all science papers claim?

    Seems to be.

  39. #39 Jeff Harvey
    January 2, 2013

    Suyre Chameleon, I did. And of course, SLR is one concern amongst many with respect to AGW: or do you deny this? What is your view on the field of AGW? Or won’t you stick your neck out beyond SLR? What I don’t get is how you and a few others can cite single papers by authors with no direct expertise in marine geophysics (Humlum) and then speak as if this these single studies are defining when there are many others by much more qualified researchers with quite different conclusions.

    Moreover, what I find amusing is that dolts like SD appear to write as if nobody else on the planet (besides a few people here on Deltoid) are researching SLR, and that his view is the final word. Its the same story with deniers on blogs: few if any are qualified scientists, few if any have any relevant expertise in fields they comment on as if tghey are experts, and, most importantly, their views conflict with the views of the vast majority of scientists working in the field. Now I don’t wish to be harsh, but if you and SD are such esteemed experts on this issue, why aren’t you both writing up articles in the relevant jounrals? The worst offender of course is Jonas, consigned to his own half-baked insanity thread, where he constantly writes as if he knows more than Trenberth, Mann, Hansen, Jones and dozens of others of scientists who have spent decades inb the field of climate science. His sum contribution to the peer-reviewed literature is nil. Same goes fro Drongo and yourself, as far as I know. So what gives you the authority to validate the findings of a suspect paper by a denier on the academic fringe (Humlum) versus a much larger volume of data on SLR pointing to quite different causation and outcomes?

    Type in the words ‘Rising sea level’ and ‘ climate change’ into the Web of Science search engine and you get 3319 hits with more than 11000 citations in 2012 alone. That’s a helluva lot of literature to read through before one like Spangled Drongo can dismiss the issue as being of non-concern or non-importance. Here’s one just published in December that supports the IPCC models:

    New estimates of secular sea level rise from tide gauge data and GIA modelling
    Author(s): Spada, G (Spada, Giorgio)1; Galassi, G (Galassi, Gaia)1
    Source: GEOPHYSICAL JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL Volume: 191 Issue: 3 Pages: 1067-1094 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05663.x Published: DEC 2012
    Times Cited: 0 (from Web of Science)
    Cited References: 111 [ view related records ] Citation Map
    Abstract: During the last three decades, at least 30 independent estimates of the secular global mean sea level rise (GMSLR) have been published, based on sufficiently long tide gauge (TG) records. Despite its apparent simplicity, the problem of GMSLR is fraught with a number of difficulties, which make it one of the most challenging questions of climate change science. Not surprisingly, published estimates show considerable scatter, with rates ranging between 1 and 2 mm yr-1 for observations on the century timescale. In previous work, the importance of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) upon the assessment of the GMSLR has been clearly demonstrated. In particular, starting from the 1980s, GIA models have been routinely employed to decontaminate TG observations from the effects of melting of the late-Pleistocene ice sheets, to fully highlight the sea level variations driven by climate change. However, uncertainties associated with the Earths rheological profile and the time history of the past continental ice sheets can propagate into the GIA corrections. After revisiting previous work and estimates, we suggest a significant modification of the criteria for the selection of the TGs which are most suitable for the robust assessment of the secular GMSLR. In particular, we seek a set of TGs for which GIA corrections are essentially independent of the parametrization of the rheological profile of the Earths mantle and of the detailed time chronology of surface loading. This insensitivity is established by considering predictions based upon three GIA models widely employed in the recent literature (namely, ICE3G, ICE5G and the one developed at the Research School of Earth Sciences of the National Australian University). Applying this approach and selection criteria previously proposed in the literature, we identify a set of 22 sufficiently evenly distributed TGs. By simple statistical methods, these records yield a preferred, GIA-independent GMSLR estimate since 1880, namely 1.5 +/- 0.1 mm yr-1 (rms = 0.4 mm yr-1, wrms = 0.3 mm yr-1). This value is consistent with various previous estimates based on secular TG observations and with that proposed, for the 20th century, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (1.7 +/- 0.5 mm yr-1).

    Note the final sentence. Digest it.

    There are tons of other studies supporting this one. My point is that its ridiculous for the Dunning-Kruger mob to argue forcefully on a blog of all places that SLR as a result of AGW is not happening or that it is trivial. I have yet to see SD and you adding to the theoretical or empircial literature in this area. Why not? I write as someone quite qualified in my area of research (population ecology) who takes the prevailing views in climate science very seriously. I recently attended the annual meeting of the British Ecological Society and the issue of climate change was a major theme. Nowhere was there denial of the human fingerprint or on the potential consequences of inaction. Amongst the scientists there, the human fingerprint is taken as given, based on the proxy evdience and support for the bulk of our colleagues in climate science.

  40. #40 JohnL
    January 2, 2013

    Spagled Drongo, explain please:

    Why is mean sea level along the Indian coast higher in
    the Bay of Bengal than in the Arabian Sea?

    Abstract.

    Levelling observations conducted during the Great Trigonometrical
    Survey of India (1858{1909) and subsequent observations showed that
    mean sea level along the coast of India is higher in the Bay of Bengal than
    in the Arabian Sea, the diference in sea level between Vishakhapatnam and
    Mumbai (Bombay) being about 30 cm.

    http://drs.nio.org/drs/bitstream/2264/19/1/Geophys_Res_Lett_28_563.pdf

    Why is mean sea level along the Indian coast higher in
    the Bay of Bengal than in the Arabian Sea?

  41. #41 Neil White
    January 2, 2013

    Spangled Drongo

    “So that if local SLs have not risen but actually reduced in Moreton Bay over ~ 70 years, there cannot be SLR in the rest of the world, accelerating or otherwise.”

    What on earth are you talking about? This is nonsense. Why can’t there be SLR in the rest of the world? Did you understand the graph I linked to?

    Let’s suppose for the monent that the SL in Moreton Bay has been flat for 70 years. Why does this constrain the rest of the world. Why is Moreton Bay (or, more to the point, a location 7 kilometres up the creek from a river entrance) the golden point to measure global sea level? What about all the other points around the world where there is a clear long-term trend in SL? Why don’t they count?

  42. #42 Wow
    January 2, 2013

    ” Why can’t there be SLR in the rest of the world? Did you understand the graph I linked to?”

    Because otherwise sparkly dangles here wouldn’t have a reason to have faith in the denailist worldview.

  43. #43 Ian Forrester
    January 2, 2013

    More lies from chameleon. He/she/it lies that he/she/it does not know the meaning of “scare quotes”:

    Alternatively, material in scare quotes may represent the writer’s concise (but possibly misleading) paraphrasing, characterization, or intentional misrepresentation of statements, concepts, or terms used by a third party. This may be an expression of sarcasm or incredulity, or it may also represent a rhetorical attempt to frame a discussion in the writer’s desired (non-standard) terms

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

    Of courses that is exactly what he/she/it was doing. To deny that is just one gigantic lie. Of course that is par for the course for AGW deniers since the only way they can deny reality is by lying about it. There is a lot of it around with SD, BFPM and the shamefulone.

  44. #44 Chris W
    January 2, 2013

    Hey, go easy Ian Forrester. Now that Drongo’s lunacy has fully revealed itself chameleon is probably in a fight to the death with his/her/its’ inner hypocrite.

    I can just see the facepalm … “Why on earth did the old ninny go and say that ?? … now I’ll have to support him because I’ve argued that all viewpoints are equally valid … wait … I know … I won’t comment on his stupidity just like I haven’t all thread … phew, almost forgot the first rule of Denier Club … *NEVER* call out the dickheads in Denier Club … but, will the folk here notice? … damn, I can’t decide what to do…”

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    January 2, 2013

    Chris W,

    Right on. Nowhere is this more evident than on the Jonas thread, where the denier nitwits there pat each other on the back endlessly even when they are making wholly fallacious arguments. I cringe every time I read PentaxZ’s rubbish over there – his inability to understand the process and importance of spatial and temporal scales in understanding time-series data sets is truly staggering. Certainly he expects near instantaneous responses in cause-and-effect (C02-temperature) relationships generated over immense geographical scales, whilst ignoring lags, short-term feedback effects and other vital areas. I have seen the same thing done by naysayers in predicting extinction rates on the basis of habitat loss. These idiots think that the loss of habitat area y must, by definition, lead to the extinction of species a-x in that habitat instantaneously, without reconciling population relaxation times and temporal lags. Populations of species are probably still being lost in North America as a result of habitat destruction more than a century ago. It can take this long for changes to fully manifest themselves on components within the system. Drongo and Chameleon here are also mangling science in defense of – well – a defenseless position with regards to SLR.

  46. #46 spangled drongo
    January 2, 2013

    Neil White, the 4th graph in your link does indeed show SL variation of +/- ~ 30 cms over the surface of the earth.

    Fully accept that. [John L take note]

    I’ll say this again for those a little slow:

    These variations in SL are, as you know, the results of constant winds and/or currents but even at twice those heights they only represent the equivalent of a micron of variation in the surface of a billiard table.

    IOW ~ one hundred times more perfectly flat than the best competition billiard table money can buy.

    If the world’s oceans are as aggressive as this at seeking and finding equilibrium, then ANY LOCALLY OBSERVED SLs, regardless of where they may be on the surface of the earth, that fail to rise over a ~70 year period, show that SLR is not happening.

  47. #47 Jeff Harvey
    January 2, 2013

    “These variations in SL are, as you know, the results of constant winds and/or currents but even at twice those heights they only represent the equivalent of a micron of variation in the surface of a billiard table”

    What a ridiculous corollary. I’d love to see you try and get that through peer-review. It would be bounced so fast that you wouldn’t know what hit you. Read the link I posted above, Drongo. Kind of spoils your party.

  48. #48 Chameleon
    January 2, 2013

    Ummm Jeff?
    This was your question:
    ‘This makes we wonder why Chameleon and SD appear set on flogging this one and only horse. What about ther myriad other effects? ‘
    I was just trying to anwer your question. There was no ‘or’ involved:
    ‘Or won’t you stick your neck out beyond SLR? ‘
    Also?
    Am I to assume that you have a better right to publish than Humlum and also that you have published more than 49 with a superior h factor and more citations since 1982?
    I googled ‘Jeff Harvey’ and didn’t find any publications by anyone of that name.
    But perhaps you have published under a different name?

  49. #49 Neil White
    January 3, 2013

    Spangled Drongo

    “If the world’s oceans are as aggressive as this at seeking and finding equilibrium, then ANY LOCALLY OBSERVED SLs, regardless of where they may be on the surface of the earth, that fail to rise over a ~70 year period, show that SLR is not happening.”

    Now tell us what locally oberved SLs that do rise over a period of 70 years tell us.

  50. #50 Bernard J.
    January 3, 2013

    Drongo.

    You have more homework.

    Or is it all too hard for you now?

    And do you still stand by Daly?

  51. #51 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “Am I to assume that you have a better right to publish than Humlum ”

    Completely irrelevant.

    Humlum’s work is substandard and this specific one just plain wrong.

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    January 3, 2013

    …the 4th graph in your link does indeed show SL variation of +/- ~ 30 cms over the surface of the earth…

    Good grief, your incomprehension in service of your pre-existing conclusions is astounding. As I already pointed out, the 4th graph shows trends, not differences. You can’t conclude “it’s 30cm higher in one place than another” from that graph.

    …but even at twice those heights they only represent the equivalent of a micron of variation in the surface of a billiard table…

    …a notion with which you are utterly deluding yourself, as I pointed out above. Small percentage variations on a very large base do NOT imply small absolute variations, no matter how fondly you embrace the idea.

    If the GST rate was only 0.01% instead of 10% you would conclude that no GST could ever be levied – and the corporate accountant and the Tax Office would both disabuse you very quickly if you bought a million dollars worth of horse shit and refused to pay the $100 of tax.

  53. #53 Lotharsson
    January 3, 2013

    Am I to assume that you have a better right to publish than Humlum…

    And while I’m here your question relies on incorrect assumptions. In science no-one has a right to publish in peer-reviewed journals.

    I googled ‘Jeff Harvey’ and didn’t find any publications by anyone of that name.

    So…you’re also incompetent at Googling, and at basic scientific article finding. Heck, the very first hit when you Google – with quotes – “Jeff Harvey” and “scientist” is a Wiki page about him, and the second hit takes you to his page at his institution. That page has a “Selected Publications” list.

    It staggers me that you can think yourself competent to assess scientific claims when you can’t even manage this basic search.

    Meanwhile, you continue to fail to justify your claim that Humlum’s work is “equally valid” – note the use of scare quotes to express both sarcasm and incredulity at your claim – and you once again failed to stick the flounce on your way out. Perhaps we can hope for third time lucky?

  54. #54 Lotharsson
    January 3, 2013

    Oops, left out the term ‘bibliography’ in my description of the Google search. Without it Jeff’s page at his institution is only the third hit – very hard to find, eh?

  55. #55 JohnL
    January 3, 2013

    Damn, Lotharsson, you beat me to it. I used google scholar and got 15,000 hits; guess google is beyond chamleleon’s capabilities.

    And for spangles

    “Tide gauges measure sea level with respect to a tide -
    gauge datum that is only useful locally and not suitable for global studies. An
    attempt to measure the relative height between local tide – gauge datums does not
    provide an effective global solution to this problem, though it may be useful for
    some regional studies.”

    Geoffrey Blewitt
    Understanding Sea Level Rise and Variability
    http://geodesy.unr.edu/publications/Blewitt_Chapter09.pdf

    In other words, Moreton Bay is not the globe.

  56. #56 chameleon
    January 3, 2013

    Thanks Lotharsson,
    will attempt to look him up after work.

  57. #57 spangled drongo
    January 3, 2013

    “Now tell us what locally oberved SLs that do rise over a period of 70 years tell us.”

    Neil White, a very good point. Do you have any?

    And BJ, when you want to deal seriously with SLR instead of huffing, puffing, handwaving, distracting and denying, I’m happy to talk to you. If not, find somone else.

    Producing your own obs and answering my last question would be a start.

  58. #58 Bernard J.
    January 3, 2013

    Drongo.

    I am dealing seriously with sea level rise, and particularly with your inability to comprehend that your own observations and favoured sources are completely unreliable.

    Exacty how am I distracting? I keep referring to inescapably important factors that you have failed to take into consideration, and that you refuse to acknowledge – these factors are directly pertinent to the validity (or rather the lack thereof) of your claim, so my focus on these points is anything but a distraction.

    I am not distracting – you are, and you have been distracting from your errors for three years.

    And I am not the one who is denying the integral contributions of the factors that I list in determining what the level of water is in a river.

    I am not denying – you are, and you have been denying for three years that my points are pertinent and that your claims are bogus.

    Producing your own obs and answering my last question would be a start.

    Why should I produce my own observations? There’s a wealth of appropriately collected and analysed scientifc-quality data out there, and anyway when I mentioned my own acquaintances’ observations of record overtoppings you disparaged them in favour of your own.

    And why should I answer a question that is tangential at best to the bases of my challenge of your pseudoscience?

    A question that, incidentally, and like so much else you produce, is nothing but a distraction.

    Which brings me back to the fact that there is more homework waiting for your attention.

  59. #59 spangled drongo
    January 3, 2013

    Bernard, the only way you have dealt with this problem to date is through years of deliberate obscurantism and obfuscation but in spire of your incredibly negative attitude there are some here who seem interested enough to discuss the real world situation.

    Now do you at least admit that:

    “So, while it departs from the ellipsoid that it is referenced to by up to about +/- 100 metres, it is, in effect a ‘level surface’ for all normal purposes”

  60. #60 Lotharsson
    January 3, 2013

    Spangled Drongo is still pretending that the “4th graph” he approvingly cited doesn’t refute his oft-made claim that sea levels can’t be rising because of his “obs” and hoping that no-one else will notice.

  61. #61 spangled drongo
    January 3, 2013

    Yes, sorry Lothe, I mistakenly assumed the 4th graph was the 4th ellipsoid graph which is the one that I meant, showing a +/- 30 cms as I mentioned. Not the +/- 15 mm/y.

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    January 3, 2013

    So…you’re citing the analysis of the data that shows sea surface height, but rejecting the analysis of the data that shows sea surface level rise, because as that movie of sea level height points out:

    The plot at the top of the page shows the time series of the means of these fields.

    And that plot clearly shows global average sea level rise.

    You do realise your two stances are mutually exclusive, right? Which one will you reject?

  63. #63 Neil White
    January 3, 2013

    Spangled Drongo

    NW: “Now tell us what locally oberved SLs that do rise over a period of 70 years tell us.”

    SD: “Neil White, a very good point. Do you have any?”

    Yes, there are lots of them. That’s where the estimates of GMSL rise (such as the one at the very start of this thread) come from. Now answer the question.

    As far as I can tell, in Drongo World, if we took 50 tide gauge records, each 70 years long (say over 1940-2010), and 49 of them showed trends of 1.5 to 2.5 mm/year over the seventy years. but the one in a river near Drongo’s place showed a trend of 0.0 mm/year over the same period, then Drongo would reject the other 49 and accept the one that says 0. Is that correct?

  64. #64 Jeff Harvey
    January 3, 2013

    Chameleon,

    FYI

    I have 121 publication on the WoS since 1993 and 2786 citations (460 in 2012). That’s more than half of the citations that Ole Humlum has in his entire scientific career (which in terms of publishing began in 1982). And many of my colleagues are way ahead of me….

    As I said, he’s a mediocre scientist in my view who, like many bother mediocre scientists, gets undue attention for being a climate change denier.

  65. #65 spangled drongo
    January 3, 2013

    Neil White, it is not rising along the east coast of Australia as well as in many other parts of the world.

    Why is it rising in only some parts of the world when the oceans are flatter than a billiard table?

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/are-sea-levels-rising-nils-axel-morner-documents-a-decided-lack-of-rising-seas/

  66. #66 Lotharsson
    January 3, 2013

    …it is not rising along the east coast of Australia as well as in many other parts of the world.

    Morner is a deceptive hack as has been amply documented in the past, and Joanne Nova routinely and egregiously misinterprets scientific data but only so that it supports her pre-existing conclusions as I can attest to from personal experience. If you’re trying to substantiate your case (for once) by referral to quality data with a sufficient sample size you’ll need to do better than either of those sources. Or at the very least show why they are correct and (say) the sources Neil White points to are badly mistaken. Given your history of almost complete error I don’t like your chances.

    Speaking of robust data, the actual 4th graph in Neil White’s link uses the same underlying data that you agree with when you cited the animation that shows that sea level differences aren’t too great. That graph and data say otherwise.

    Doesn’t the cognitive dissonance ever become disturbing to you?

  67. #67 Bolt for PM
    January 3, 2013

    Neil White, you say:
    “As far as I can tell, in Drongo World, if we took 50 tide gauge records, each 70 years long (say over 1940-2010), and 49 of them showed trends of 1.5 to 2.5 mm/year over the seventy years. but the one in a river near Drongo’s place showed a trend of 0.0 mm/year over the same period, then Drongo would reject the other 49 and accept the one that says 0. Is that correct?”

    That isn’t what SD is saying at all. he is asking a simple question. I assume, knowing nothing much about sea levels and tides, that there is a simple answer. I know I haven’t followed this thread in detail and perhaps it already has been answered..

    SD is saying, if 49 records show a rise but one does not AND if the sea tends to aggressively seek equilibrium, then why does one not? One could assume some local influence, but surely over time the broader trend must overtake the local variables. The fact that one tide gauge does not reflect the other 49 poses a question.

    The answer must be simple. What is it?

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    January 3, 2013

    That isn’t what SD is saying at all.

    You could have fooled me!

    OK, to be as fair as possible to SD he’s actually saying that all the measurements he didn’t personally take, and which show sea level rise which is inconvenient to his position, are flawed. And his personal observations, they are are accurate.

    I assume, knowing nothing much about sea levels and tides, that there is a simple answer. … SD is saying, if 49 records show a rise but one does not AND if the sea tends to aggressively seek equilibrium, then why does one not?

    The following simple answer has been given: “perhaps because the one he is pointing to is 7km up a river in an environment that has experienced several confounding factors”.

    If he were to start talking about some high quality sea level observations, that would be a different question. But since he rejects those other observations, he’s not asking that one.

  69. #69 Lotharsson
    January 3, 2013

    Also, he has fooled himself that “aggressively seeking equilibrium” means “must all experience essentially the same sea level changes”, despite me pointing out that this is a fallacious (and innumerate) argument.

  70. #70 Anthony David
    January 3, 2013

    Isostasy is a principle taught in first year earth science. It addresses the bouyancy of continents with respect to the underlying mantle. I don’t have a textbook that it explains it, Can anyone help out here?

    My lecturer did a great job, reinforced with some simple mass balance calculations, to explain why continents rebound in response to erosion. A rapid version of erosion is glacial ice loss, say at the end of an Ice Age stage. Later I learnt that the story is complicated by the underlying mantle also adjusting its mass in response. The upshot of it is that a point on the surface of the earth is rarely fixed over time which complicates (sea level) measurements.

  71. #71 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “Neil White, it is not rising along the east coast of Australia as well as in many other parts of the world.”

    and you have measured the entire east coast of Australia, glittery bollocks?

  72. #72 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “SD is saying, if 49 records show a rise but one does not AND if the sea tends to aggressively seek equilibrium, then why does one not”

    Because the sea level at that location isn’t the sea level but the level of the river.

    Duh.

  73. #73 Bernard J.
    January 3, 2013

    Bernard, the only way you have dealt with this problem to date is through years of deliberate obscurantism and obfuscation…

    Oh the irony…

    Still, Drongo, if such isthe case you should be up to your river wall mark in examples. Please supply a few.

    And please explain why you refuse to address the multiple substantive points I make, each one which demolishes on its own your entire case.

  74. #74 Bernard J.
    January 3, 2013

    SD is saying, if 49 records show a rise but one does not AND if the sea tends to aggressively seek equilibrium, then why does one not? One could assume some local influence, but surely over time the broader trend must overtake the local variables. The fact that one tide gauge does not reflect the other 49 poses a question.

    The answer must be simple. What is it?

    The answer is simple, and it has been pointed out by others above. Drongo’s mark is:

    1) in a river 7km away from the nearest mouth to the open ocean

    2) affected by significant damming histories

    3) affected by a history of significant alterations of river hydrology, including bank engineering, drainage alterations, canal developments, et cetera

    4) affected by a history of estuarine dredging, sand bank shifting, mouth reconfigurations, et cetera

    5) not tied to any compensation for barometric or other meteorological conditions, including flooding

    6) not tied to any compensation for regional currents or other oceanographic conditions.

    These points along are each sufficient to explain why Drongo’s mark does not reflect the “broader trend”.

    The distraction of water finding its “equilibrium” is spurious, because there are many factors that can affect this parameter too, that do not invalidate the scientific observations of global sea level rise.

    Way back in the early days of this discussion I mentioned eustatic movement but it’s unlikely to contribute more than a minor proportion of any change. However it’s interesting to see the phenomenon raised again, because it is an important – and in fact, essential – part of John Daly’s attempt to contradict the fact of sea level rise, and I have yet to see Drongo acknowledge that Daly screwed up about this.

    If only Drongo or any of his supporters here would actually address any and all of these matters…

    But of course they won’t, because it’s a meme dear to their hearts. It’s extraordinary though that they cleave to it so vigorously – even children grow up and admit to themselves that Santa doesn’t exist when the evidence indicates otherwise, but here are a bunch of denialists who have been repeatedy presented overwhelming reasons why Drongo’s flight of fancy is foundering, and all they are able to do it to carefully turn their noses away from it like a banker stepping over a dead junkie in the street.

  75. #75 Lionel A
    January 3, 2013

    Anthony David

    Isostasy is a principle taught in first year earth science. It addresses the bouyancy of continents with respect to the underlying mantle. I don’t have a textbook that it explains it, Can anyone help out here?

    Not so much a text book more ‘Popular Science’ but of value to those who obviously know little about Earth’s process is Waking the Giant: How a changing climate triggers earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes.

    Any good general book on the Earth’s systems will have much of value and a broader view such as Earth’s Climate: Past and Future. Bill Ruddiman’s ‘Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate‘ is also worth a look.

    Comprehensive texts on oceanography will also help by providing essential background information which undermines all these denier wilfully ignorant arguing points with Oceanography (ISE): An Invitation to Marine Science.

    Each of these I have copies of, and have studied, but of course as we know one can lead an ass to, the rising, water but cannot ever make them drink, and hold it.

    The big thing of course is to get these wilfully ignorant to not only read but to follow up on cited sources in the texts suggested. This is probably an alien concept to those not exposed to the rigours of study in university level education. I have followed such citations and learned much. Problem is it is so complex and nuanced that posting in blogs such as this is not the easiest of methods by which to distil such knowledge. Thus the supply of recommends and citations is probably the best shorthand for the necessary learning methodology.

  76. #76 Neil White
    January 3, 2013

    Spangled Drongo:

    “Neil White, it is not rising along the east coast of Australia as well as in many other parts of the world.”

    And it is rising even faster in many other parts of the world, such that the global mean trend from satellite altimeters over the last 19 years is > 3 mm/year. Estimates from tide gauges for the same period are similar. I don’t understand why this is difficult for you to understand. If you want a global mean you have to look at all measurements over the globe, not just pick one area that tells you what you want to hear! Perhaps you should look at those plots again, espeicially the fourth figure down.

    “Why is it rising in only some parts of the world when the oceans are flatter than a billiard table?”

    As has been pointed out to you, the billiard table comparison is not appropriate. There are a lot of reasons why the rate of sea level rise varies. For example, the very high trends in the western tropical pacific over the last two decades are related to the PDO.There was a paper on this in GRL by Zhang and Church last year.

    “http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/are-sea-levels-rising-nils-axel-morner-documents-a-decided-lack-of-rising-seas/”

    This is the same self-referential garbage that you linked to the other day. Find some real science by real scientists. This might appeal to you: after Morner’s rubbish paper on the Maldives got published some years ago, Sallie Baliunas (an astronomer who used to be Willie Soon’s offsider, but has gone quiet lately) put something out about Morner’s claimed drop in sea level around the Maldives being due to the Maldives being near that big depression in the geoid in the Indian Ocean. Hilarious! This was on some CEI sponsored web site.

  77. #77 Bolt for PM
    January 3, 2013

    Bernard J and Lotharsson, you say that SD’s point of measurement is in a river some distance from the sea. I agree with that and I can see the case for the confounding factors. But I asked about that earlier. You are making claims that invalidate SD’s reference point but they ARE just that, claims. I doubt you have any actual evidence of the effects of those factors for this particular location.

    For this to be so, those factors have to just happen to have constrained sea level rise to show no effect at that location. Regardless of the exact location, it IS tidal. And thus must be affected by SLR. You argue for that by claiming confounding factors that have prevented that effect. So isn’t it a bit of a reach to claim those factors have so nicely offset SLR over 70 years?

  78. #78 spangled drongo
    January 3, 2013

    Neil White, it is also falling in some parts of the world. The Billiard Table Principle is arguably a lot more dependable than RSSs when it comes to SLs.

    As I have mentioned, we can have MSL rise but high tide level fall which is SLR but still confirms my obs.

    And to repeat myself for those too obtuse to want to know, my Chevron Island benchmark is just one of many benchmarks I have around Moreton Bay that all agree [as do local tide gauges] and two of which are considerably older. ~ 70 years.

    But what continues to surprise me is: why haven’t you self professed scientific observers got any observations of your own?

    It is akin to talking to people in a different language.

  79. #79 joni
    January 3, 2013

    This is an interesting paper on the tides in SD’s area.

    http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/361940/Mirf_Tidal_Inlets.pdf

  80. #80 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “Why is it rising in only some parts of the world when the oceans are flatter than a billiard table?”

    Why is it impossible for that to happen?

  81. #81 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “Neil White, it is also falling in some parts of the world.”

    And on average it is rising.

    Do you have ANY IDEA what “average” means, spangles?

  82. #82 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “As I have mentioned, we can have MSL rise”

    We do have MSL rise. And that rise is called SLR.

    “but high tide level fall which is SLR but still confirms my obs.”

    WRONG.

    High tide causes the sea level where the tide is high to be rising, but that isn’t SLR.

    You stupid boy

  83. #83 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    Fuck it.

    Spangled pasties, what term to YOU want for the rise in MSL to be?

    We’ll use that BTL.

    When MSL rises, what should it be called so that you can stop fucking about with half-arsed bollocks because you’re a simpleton and can’t (and won’t) understand a fucking thing?

  84. #84 Bolt for PM
    January 3, 2013

    Spangles isn’t arguing with the notion of average, Wow. he’s asking why, if the sea is aggressively level, some places might show a decline, or a much slower rise than others, over time.

  85. #85 bill
    January 3, 2013

    Here we go – the historic association between our current CO2 concentration – 400ppm – and equilibrium sea-level is 9m above present. Perhaps a little less in Spangly’s Rivulet.

    Of course, the concentration won’t stay there.

    I’m going to give the Deniers fair warning; if – as is highly likely – you don’t actually manage to read the article, you’re going to say a lot of stupid things. Well, a lot more stupid things. I predict that even with this advance warning you will be unable to stop yourselves…

  86. #86 Bolt for PM
    January 3, 2013

    His point re tides is interesting too. 70 years is not a long time. Is it possible that while MSL has risen, actual highest high water for his location has not increased by much if at all due to the local confounding factors?

  87. #87 Bolt for PM
    January 3, 2013

    SD’s benchmarks do not take into account MSL for his location, after all. He is only looking at daily extremes.

  88. #88 bill
    January 3, 2013

    Spangles isn’t arguing with the notion of average

    Isn’t he just? And this followed by an oxymoronic question!

    And the answer to said question is ‘for all the reasons we have indicated and linked to’. Of course, you have to have some ability to absorb counter-information to learn anything from it.

  89. #89 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “Spangles isn’t arguing with the notion of average”

    Yes he is when he asks “How can it go down in some places and up in others?” and follows it up with “SLR can’t be going up because it’s not going up everywhere”.

  90. #90 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “he’s asking why, if the sea is aggressively level”

    The sea isn’t aggressively level.

  91. #91 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “He is only looking at daily extremes.”

    Then he’s not only not reading SEA LEVEL he’s not reading RIVER level either.

    And his data quality control is nonexistent.

    For all the whinging about how badly sited the stephenson screens are, not one of you fuckwits have complained about the complete lack of data quality control of spangled droplets’ data.

  92. #92 Bolt for PM
    January 3, 2013

    Comprehension fail Wow. The sea may not be aggressively level, but that is what SD is suggesting unless I misunderstand him. He is saying that it IS aggressively level. That claim is either right or wrong, but that’s his basis for his argument.

    He then goes on to claim that if it IS level, then if in one place sea level is NOT rising as per some real world benchmarks, then it must not be rising elsewhere. That’s nothing to do with averages. He is effectively claiming that the tide gauge data must be incorrect.

  93. #93 Bolt for PM
    January 3, 2013

    Wow, there has never been a question about whether his data is quality controlled or not. It hasn’t been. As far as I am concerned, he could have made it all up. What SD is saying is that his own personal observations over time are that the sea level (and here I think he means max high water) has not increased. I echoed that from my own personal experience.

  94. #94 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    And since you KNOW the data is of questionable quality, why do you think he’s got anything worthwhile to say on the subject?

    He HAS NO DATA to back his assertion up with.

  95. #95 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “The sea may not be aggressively level, but that is what SD is suggesting ”

    And since the “if” clause is false, the statement has no response.

    Do you know what “if” means?

  96. #96 bill
    January 3, 2013

    BFPM – all you’re doing is reiterating the ridiculousness of Spangly’s position.

    ‘Since I choose to disregard even substantial variations and arbitrarily redefine the whole as “aggressively level” I can then aggressively assert that because I’ve obviated variation by fiat there also cannot be any variation in the rate of change of SL, therefore despite the clear evidence of SLR overall I’ve done away with the whole concept of average and am now aggressively claiming, in common with some of my denser cohorts with regard to temperature, that any value below the (rejected!) median is clear proof that no median rise is occurring! I’ll then aggressively demand that all responses to me must be twisted to fit this aggressively ridiculous framework.’

    Talk about 6 impossible things before breakfast!

    Or, put simply, Spangly doesn’t understand the concept of average. He’s not alone on your side of the debate – in fact, in a very real sense for the majority this is the debate!

  97. #97 Wow
    January 3, 2013

    “if the sea is aggresively level”

    It isn’t aggresively level.

    Therefore the remainder of the scenario is no different from “if unicorns exist, where are they now?”.

  98. #98 Neil White
    January 4, 2013

    Spangled Drongo

    “Neil White, it is also falling in some parts of the world.”

    That’s right – it falls in some places, is near zero in others, and rises in yet others and the global-average trend in SL is greater than zero, as shown by two independent systems. I’m glad that we’ve got that through to you at last!

    This global-mean rise can be thought of as the change in ocean volume. This change in ocean volume is consistent with the sum of contributions to ocean volume from ocean thermal expansion, ice melt and exchanges with dams and groundwater.

    “The Billiard Table Principle is arguably a lot more dependable than RSSs when it comes to SLs.”

    The billard table principle is a load of bollocks and has no relevance here. ALSO, you’re getting confused between the small large-scale slopes in the geoid (which is, effectively, a map of the MEAN sea surface over some period – typically from 20+ years of satellite altimeter data, and some other data as well), and the variability and change in SLs about that mean as measured by tide gauge and satellite data. The billiard table principle tells us exactly nothing about sea level, so is not more reliable than anything.

    And all this stuff in your head about the sea aggressively seeking flatness is wrong too. The atmosphere/ocean/earth system is a dynamic system which is in an ongoing balance, and this can lead to sea levels (and surface atmospheric pressures) being a long way from ‘level’.

    What’s you problem with satellite altimeters, apart from the fact that they tell you things you don’t want to hear?

    “But what continues to surprise me is: why haven’t you self professed scientific observers got any observations of your own?”

    We’ve got lots of observations – e.g. the ones used to produce the plot at the head of this post. When are you going to give us some concrete information about yours? While we’re on the subject of observations, can you provide some concrete evidence (rather than hearsay) to backup you claim that tidal ranges can noticeably decrease while SL rises?

    “It is akin to talking to people in a different language.”

    Agreed!

  99. #99 bill
    January 4, 2013

    10 people have an income of $50K each.

    2 years later four of them have an income of $60K, 2 now earn $55K, 2 still earn the original $50K, and two have made Tony Abbott happy by using their ‘choice’ to ‘flexibly’ earn $45K each.

    Now, as amazing as it seems, in Spanglys’ world-view not only has the average income (an arcane concept that he rejects) not increased across the 10, the total amount of money flowing to them in wages also has not increased, either!

    Even more amazingly, he can find people here willing to support him. And, more incredibly still, some of these manage to scoff at the logical credentials of others in the process!

  100. #100 gavin
    ACT
    January 4, 2013

    Was happy at Jen’s but dared to come here and claim my sea level obs based on carefull scrutiny of tide marks inland as well as long shore are everybody’s valid ref for SL even SLR.

    By tide marks, I mean everything from recent high tide wet lines, tide zone mussels, both fringe and pile clusters top to botom, also low boundary life stuck to exposed wave cut rock shelf and reef ends.

    The sheltered inlet with no major stream is the easiest to monitor against long lasting features, otherwise sea channels between continental shelf based islands and the major coastline, typical round Tasmania, north and south.

    In defense of SD, it takes a lot of patience to get some Q’landers south of the Tweed