The Australian's War on Science 45

The Australian Government has set up a Coasts and Climate Change Council to plan how to adapt to increases in sea levels and cyclone intensity that global warming will most likely bring. Since its about adaption to climate change and planning for the future, in a rational world even on opponent of mitigation like The Australian would be on board, but they are not. The Australian is certain that scientists are wrong about sea level rise and they have an impeccable authority:

Bondi veteran Lee Boman has swum at the beach for more than 30 years and was adamant he had seen "no change" to the coastline over that period. "Nothing too drastic that indicates it is going to be changed in the future," said Mr Boman, 53.

Take that, scientists! And in case that by itself is not convincing, Boman's picture is splashed across five columns on the front page. Now Boman looks like a decent sort and I wouldn't mind hearing more from him, so if The Australian sacked the people who write its boringly predictable editorials and hired Boman to write them instead, I'd be all for it. But if you want to know whether sea level is rising or not, you need to break out the tide gauges and satellites and let the scientists analyze them. Here's the result from CSIRO and a graph you will never see printed in The Australian:

i-b61ba55f77ccc7130aa283bc404d9f77-alt_gmsl_seas_rem.png

Next The Australian trots out Bob Carter, also not an expert on sea level changes.

Bob Carter, a geologist and environmental scientist with James Cook University in Queensland, said Senator Wong's comments appeared to be an attempt to panic the public.

Pointing to historical rates of sea level rise of an average 1.6mm per year globally over the past 100 years, Mr Carter said it was reasonable to expect a total rise of 16cm in a century.

IF we check with the CSIRO we find:

We have used a combination of historical tide-gauge data and satellite-altimeter data to estimate global averaged sea level change from 1870 to 2004. During this period, global-averaged sea level rose almost 20 cm, with an average rate of rise of about 1.7 mm/yr over the 20th Century. The sea level record indicates a statistically significant increase in the rate of rise between 1870 to 2004.

Looks like Carter got his numbers from the CSIRO and misinterpreted them. There is no reason to expect the rate of sea level rise to drop back to what it was in the 20th century, in fact its likely to accelerate.

Against this The Australian brings out its third expert:

Patrick Doab, 63, said he had been visiting Bondi nearly every Sunday since the 1960s and was not worried anything would change.

Of course. This article was written by Lanai Vasek and Matthew Franklin, who really should be ashamed of themselves for stealing this story by Drew Warne-Smith and James Madden, published in The Australian in November:

By comparison, the NSW government's projections - based on global modelling by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as CSIRO regional analysis - equate to a future rise of about 6.6mm a year. Such a projection has caused widespread concern for landowners and developers, derision from "climate sceptics" within the scientific community and even some head-scratching from Wollongong locals such as Kevin Court, 80.

"I have swum at this beach every day for the past 50 years, and nothing much changes here," Mr Court said yesterday as he emerged from the surf at Wollongong's North Beach, just a short paddle from the Port Kembla gauging station.

This, too, was also front-paged with a picture of a bloke in swimmers to prove those silly scientists wrong

But that wasn't the only shot that The Australian fired in its War on Science today. There was another article, this one by Pia Akerman (yes, she's the daughter of this guy). Akerman wheels out Ian Plimer to rebut Penny Wong's speech:

Geology academic and leading climate change sceptic Ian Plimer dismissed Senator Wong's defence of the IPCC, saying she was "talking codswallop".

"She has absolutely no idea how temperature is measured, she has no idea of the algorithms used to correct the urban heat island effect," Professor Plimer said. "She has no idea we've gone from about 9000 to 3000 measuring stations, most of which are now in industrialised areas, in cities or around airports, where we have hot fumes coming out of aeroplanes."

It's possible that Wong does not know what the algorithms are, but it is certain that Plimer does not. The reduction in the number of stations does not bias the temperature record as Zeke Hausfather explains. And Menne analyzed Watt's data and found that poorly sited stations produced a cooling bias.

Finally there was an editorial that claimed:

Which is precisely why -- as one of the world's lowest carbon emitters -- we need to bide our time before rushing into an ETS.

Yes, Australia is almost in a tie with Mali -- look at the graph below.

i-ff7d19d7acf5f40275ff1fbee6b558ff-national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions_per_capita.png

More like this

Phil Watson, Team Leader of the Coastal Unit in the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water was probably pleased when The Australian's Stuart Rintoul asked to interview him about his work. Watson was the man who organised A snapshot of future sea levels: photographing the king tide…
Christopher Pearson foolishly relies on Ian Plimer for an article claiming that the link between global warming and sea level rises is "bad science": Plimer notes that "the tidal measuring station at Port Adelaide is sinking, thereby recording a sea level rise". The same is true of many other areas…
Chip Le Grand, Victorian editor of The Australian, complains that Stuart Rintoul was victimized by Media Watch. Just like Rintoul, Le Grand misrepresents Watson's paper: [Rintoul] brought to national attention research by NSW researcher Phil Watson showing that sea levels around Australia over the…
Michael Asten has sent me a response to my comments on his opinion piece (See also John Quiggin on that piece). My reply is at the end of this post. I thank Tim Lambert for his interest in my commentary article, and for the opportunity to provide a response. First the title, "The Australian's War…

Bondi veteran Lee Boman has swum at the beach for more than 30 years and was adamant he had seen "no change" to the coastline over that period.

Another Spangled Drongo, clearly.

Beyond the fact that the trend at one location is practically meaningless, it's amazing that people think they have perfect recollections, and that they are able to measure things by eyeballing them. It reminds me of a different debate where journalist David Kirby claimed he's never seen an autistic adult in his life, and therefore recent epidemiology must be wrong.

Of course these blokes who have been swimming at Bondi Beach have seen short-term changes but not noticed long-term changes. There are these things called tides which rise and fall roughly twice a day. I don't know how high the tides are at Bondi Beach, but most places the tides are of the order of a meter from low tide to high tide. That's much larger than the secular change, so I'm not surprised that a layman would miss the secular change superimposed on the normal tides. It's the same category of error as the people who point to some cold spell or snowstorm and claim that global warming isn't happening.

Carter and Plimer, however, should know better.

By Eric Lund (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

The CSIRO tell us that over 134 years, from 1870 until 2004, the sea rose "almost 20 cm". Of that rise, they tell us, 100 years' worth (the 20th c.) was accounted for by an annual average rise of 1.7mm/yr which accounts for 17cm of the total 20cm. This leaves 3cm of rise to be accounted for by the 30 years that preceded the 20th c. and the 4 years which followed. This means the rise during those years must have been .o88mm a year!

Or put it another way, if the rise was in fact 20cm over 134 years, as the CSIRO tells us, that gives you an average of 15mm/yr, so if anything, Mr. Carter is, dare I say, a tad alarmist!

But here is another view of the subject:

"In 2007, Simon Holgate of the U.K.âs Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory produced a history of global sea levels rise from 1904 to 2003 based upon a set of reliable, long-term observations from 9 tide gauge stations scattered around the world. The overall average rate of sea level rise in Holgateâs study period was found to be 1.74 ± 0.16mm/yr (about 0.07 in/yr, or 7 inches per century). In addition, he made two other notable findings, 1) the rate of sea level rise was, on average, greater in the first half of his record than the second, and 2) that there is a large degree of decadal variability in the rate of sea level rise."

This is the site which contains that quote and gives the original reference paper:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/07/22/sea-level-rise-a…

Seems to me the jury's still out.

David Duff:"Seems to me the jury's still out."

The first OJ Simpson jury, perhaps. A glance at the graph, which you obviously do not wish to discuss because you can't, shows the denier logic.

1996: SEA LEVEL STOPPED RISING!11!!ONE!!

1998: OMG SEA LEVEL DECREASING!!ELEVENTY!!

2007: JURY STILL OUT!!!11!!

By t_p_hamilton (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

@David Duff,

Some of Simon Holgates results are [here](http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Holgate/sealevel_change_poster_holgat…)

How his finding of 0.5mm/yr higher rate up to 1953 keeps the jury out on global warming is not clear to me. It may be an anomaly, but it is consistent with recent results.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the-ipcc-sea-leve…

Incidentally, Holgate has had his own brush with Leake. From www.realclimate.org:

"Leake incidentally attacked the scientific work of one of us (Stefan Rahmsdorf) in a Sunday Times article in January. This article was rather biased and contained some factual errors that Stefan asked to be corrected. He has received no response, nor was any correction made. Two British scientists quoted by Leake â Jonathan Gregory and Simon Holgate â independently wrote to Stefan after the article appeared to say they had been badly misquoted. One of them wrote that the experience with Leake had made him âreluctant to speak to any journalist about any subject at all""

And it's as well to read what AR4 actually said about sea level, not what some people think they said.

David Duff said:

Or put it another way, if the rise was in fact 20cm over 134 years, as the CSIRO tells us, that gives you an average of 15mm/yr, so if anything, Mr. Carter is, dare I say, a tad alarmist!

DD do you know what 1 + 1 is? How bout 1 * 10?

Seems like you have never done any elementary arithmetic or you don't understand the metric system.

For your information, 20 cms over 134 years is 1.49 mm/yr which is very close to Holgate's 1.74 ± 0.16mm/yr.

David Duff is, dare I say it, numerically challenged.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

Re #2 Eric Lund,

"Tides"? water rising and falling roughly twice a day?

What in heavens are you talking about man. I was at the beach for an hour yesterday and I didn't notice the water level change at all. And of course everyone knows water finds its own level and so cannot rise and fall of it's own accord.

Do you work for the IPCC or something??

Ian Forrester,

I wrote, using CSIRO figures: "1.5mm/yr"

After your comment I checked and my calculator was still switched on showing the figure '1.49253731' and I must have rounded it up to 1.5. As Python put it: "Who's a naughty boy then?"

I suspect you may be, dare I say it, nit-picky challenged!

David Duff, stop telling lies you wrote "Or put it another way, if the rise was in fact 20cm over 134 years, as the CSIRO tells us, that gives you an average of 15mm/yr."

I am not nit picking I am pointing out that you are either a liar or can't do simple arithmetic.

Do you make such elementary mistakes in everything you post (and hope no one notices)?

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

Ian

Do you make such elementary mistakes in everything you post (and hope no one notices)?

Duff confessed his ignorance on scientific questions long ago, so you shouldn't be too hard on him.

Did anyone notice that that the graph illustrates per capita emissions while the Australian editorial discusses total emissions?

Bah - I should follow links! In my defence, I'm rushing before going out... but still, the editorial doesn't mention total emissions at all, and per capita is more meaningful anyway.

Ian Forrester,
I am not a liar but I am prepared to admit a mistake, I did indeed leave out the crucial decimal point - mea culpa! Perhaps if you had pointed it out to me in a slightly more polite form we could have saved each other some trouble.

Anyway, happy now?

If so perhaps you would tell me whether this Holgate fella' is right when he states that the rate of rise was slower in the second half of the period he covered, which is, after all, a crucial point.

The Australian is right, but you need to break it down in their favour to counter the bias of the facts.

1/3000th (or 0.03%) of Australia's emissions is equivalent to "*one of the world's [lowest carbon emitters](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissi…)*".

Alternatively if the Oz was referring to per capita emissions then the first 5% of the average Australian's emissions are equivalent to the "*one of the world's lowest carbon emitters*".

David Duff, perhaps if you stopped writing rubbish all over the internet people would be a little bit kinder to you if you make an error. However, since most of the stuff you write is full of mistakes and nonsense one can quite correctly assume that they are not in fact mistakes but deliberate attempts at misinformation and obfuscation.

As for you comments about Holgate, these results can hardly be extrapolated to global coverage since he only uses data from 9 stations, that's not even one station for each sea and ocean.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

Did anyone notice that that the graph illustrates per capita emissions while the Australian editorial discusses total emissions?

Of course. The Australian article brings up total emissions to confuse its readers.

Total emissions by country - wiki

I didn't know China produced more CO2 than the US. Has the right-wing lobby in the US not noticed this, or what's the deal?

@David Duff

"perhaps you would tell me whether this Holgate fella' is right when he states that the rate of rise was slower in the second half of the period he covered, which is, after all, a crucial point."

It depends on the model he used. You will find below that different climate models give results that are at variance, but not wildly so.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/ups-and-downs-of-…

One of the paper referenced on the above post is by Simon Holgate and other colleagues, where they find a sea level rise of 2.4mm/yr over the 20th century.

http://www.glaciology.net/Home/PDFs/Jevrejeva_JGR06_-_sea_level_trends_…

So the matter of a "slightly higher" rise (by 0.5mm/yr) up to 1953, found in a single paper among many, might be anomalous, but overall the published science is consistent with the picture of sea level rise predicted by global warming.

Since Holgate's opinions have already been abused by Jonathan Leake, so it is not surprising to find his work cherry-picked on World Climate Report, a notorious faux-"scientific" site devoted to denialism.

Since you mentioned a jury, remember a jury is required to cooly examine ALL the evidence, not just bits that are cherry-picked to suit pre-existing prejudice.

Joseph #20,
Oh yes the right wing has noticed that China is the biggest C02 producer now. Its part of the standard response these days. "It won't matter what we do because China and India will do whatever they want."

By blueshift (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

Tim just loves that graph. The Doltoids war on sceptics.

Instead of quoting Penny's alarm for our sandy shores you could report on your local conditions that have been around for centuries and generally not deteriorating.

These beach regulars are simply being aware.

In my area not only are the beaches widening and the map of Australia expanding but the sandbanks offshore are also increasing. The local surfers are asking council to remove a huge amount of beach so they can get their old point breaks back.

The Highest Astronomical Tide on the 31/1/10 in my area turned out to be higher than predicted but on my 47 year old benchmark it registered 20 cms lower than it came to in 1963.

That's what these blokes are saying. NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

We have had "large and expensive nourishment programs" in the past. Many times. It's nothing new and it had nothing to do with "global warming".

Since all the alarmism arrived, the bleating and bleeding seems to have fixed the problem but don't cry wolf too often.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

Highest Astronomical Tide [HAT] is the highest level of water which can be predicted to occur under any combination of astronomical conditions.

Michael,

Check with the EPA Coastal Sciences and you will find that this king tide exceeded the HAT value for the area.

And if you're not getting any sea level rise with one of those then you need to listen to the beach regulars. NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

Maybe Lee Bowman may be right given sea level rise is not uniform? Although the global mean is rising.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

Wonder if he would say the same if he surfed in NW WA.

Cherry picking a single location to prove/disprove sea level rise over a decade or two isn't a good idea.

URL above got mangled - see hist in italics

should be "sl underscore hist underscore last"

You complete dill drongo.

Contrary to what you want to believe, spring tides are not a better gauge of rising sea levels simply because they are high.

The opposite is the case - by constaining the data to spring tides the number of data points is massively reduced making it more difficult to determine trends.

But hey, who needs satellite altimetery when you can just go for a walk on the beach and have a look for yourself!!

Oh, and what the hell are you dribbling on about @26?

Michael,

You better go back and re-read what you ask of others. So the king tides wont hurt us but the low and median tides will??. Changes in lows and medians can so easily be the result of port improvements which are happening everywhere and they can't be easily measured on open beaches but if the King tides aren't getting any higher then, like I say.....

And Luke,

I'll give you a tip: If at any single point of the sea there has been a negative SLR of 20 cms over 47 years there is no need to panic.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

As a further POI, long before the Doltoids War on Sceptics, our coastline was often under threat and houses were being regularly washed into the sea. I know because I helped try to save them and it used to be an annual event, but things have so improved in that department and it's so long ago that Doltoids probably never even knew it happened.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

If at any single point of the sea there has been a negative SLR of 20 cms over 47 years there is no need to panic.

On the 6th of February 2009 there had been a negative maximum temperature rise in Victoria for 70 years. There was no need to panic.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

Hi Joseph. The following is stated with the usual caveat of being an undereducated student who is always hoping to be corrected if he's wrong.

I didn't know China produced more CO2 than the US. Has the right-wing lobby in the US not noticed this, or what's the deal?

Don't live in the US, so can't comment on what their press say about the figures, but in my honest opinion the comparison based on absolute emissions is utterly meaningless. China is a major emitter, but it has a lot of people to support, and IMHO when the left argues about population and climate change priorities it needs to emphasise this. Look at the per capita emissions and the reduction needed to reach per capita average, and you'll see the real gap between the two countries' responsibilities.

Drongo by name, drongo by nature.

This is more pathetic than the Girma infestation. I can see why Drongo loved it over at Jen's blog - standing next to Graeme Bird he seemed almost sane.

Dear drongo, Bernard has tried to explain it to you many times, but let me try my hand as well (though I don't have Bernards patience, so it will be brief).

Any local factors that might affect a median or low tide will have precisely the same effect on a spring tide.

"If at any single point of the sea there has been a negative SLR of 20 cms over 47 years there is no need to panic."

Face-palm.
OK back to basic stats. What will give us a better representation of a population - hundreds of thousands of samples, or just 2?

It's a tough choice; do we go with multitudinous measurements from satellite altimetry, tidal gauges and buoys, or drongo's eyeball of one tide 47 yrs ago - 'it was this high I tell you! {holds hand up}'.

Are you really arguing that sea-level has fallen 20cm in the past 50 yrs and no one has noticed?

Chris and Janet,

Try not to be any more boring than you can help, there are better things we could all be doing. We've already thrashed out the SL v temperature chaos comparisons and the "sinking islands". Next please!

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

shorter Drongo,

*All sea inundation is 100% due to sinking land. My backyard is the only valid point to measure. Hence my single location and HAT measurement trump the world's most competent professionals.*

Remind us Drongo, you have how many data point in the last 40 years?

drongo:

Try not to be any more boring than you can help

Drongo loses the argument so his response is nothing more than a personal attack.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

[From Mangled Drongo at #27](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…):

Highest Astronomical Tide [HAT] is the highest level of water which can be predicted to occur under any combination of astronomical conditions.

Ah, I see that you have adopted the definition as I [explained it to you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), when [you tried to tell us that a HAT is](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…):

...just the old twice-a-year king tide...

Remember?

Also at #27 above:

Check with the EPA Coastal Sciences and you will find that this king tide exceeded the HAT value for the area.

So? That's the whole bloody point of what I and others have been trying to drive into your head over on the [Andrew Bolt in one graph](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php) thread.

And if a tide in 1963 exceeded that of 31 January this year, so bloody what?! Do you have the meteorological data to say that the conditions in 1963 were such that only sea level decline explains the difference between 1963 and 2010 heights?

Then [at #32](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…):

Changes in lows and medians can so easily be the result of port improvements which are happening everywhere and they can't be easily measured on open beaches...

Changes in any tide parameter can be the result of "port improvements", or any other hydrodynamic-altering process, which was another of my points at [post #115 on the Andrew Bolt in one graph thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), and in subsequent postings.

So how exactly do you know that the differences in sea level height that you discern over your period of "observations" is in fact due to global sea level decrease, and not to such local hydrodynamic disturbance? The fact of "open beaches" is irrelevant if you are refering to several particular king tide events in extraordinary meteorological milieux, and which are separated by a period time during which significant hydrodynamic profile shiftings have occurred.

You continue:

... but if the King tides aren't getting any higher then, like I say.....

On what basis do you say that "King tides aren't getting any higher"? I [spent quite some effort obtaining and crunching the raw tide gauge data for Brisbane and the Gold Coast](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), and graphed the data for you that relates to your claims. And always considering my oft-repeated caveat aboutt cherry-picking a small number of occasions (and extraordinarily extreme and variable occasions at that) I showed you that the linear trend of the Brisbane 1980-2004 and the Gold Coast 1986-2004 king tide heights for January were 4.1 and 8.5 mm/yr respectively.

The February Brisbane and Goald Coast king tide heights were -0.1 and 2.3 mm/yr respectively. Oo, look, a negative value finally snuck in, but of course the caveat about using restricted datasets still remains.

But let's ignore the dubious monthly data and turn instead to the complete datasets for the post 1980 period. I am not inclined to tart up some graphs just at the moment, but the rates of increase are already at my fingertips... the monthly highest tides at Brisbane demonstrate a linear trend fit that increases at 2.3mm/yr, and the Gold Coast show an increase of - drumroll - 5.8 mm/yr.

You just can't win, can you drongo?

And finally, there's [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…):

As a further POI, long before the Doltoids War on Sceptics, our coastline was often under threat and houses were being regularly washed into the sea. I know because I helped try to save them and it used to be an annual event, but things have so improved in that department and it's so long ago that Doltoids probably never even knew it happened

"Things have improved" as a consequence of building regulations and of engineering advances. Give "things" another 50 cm sea level increase though and many building regulations and engineering feats will be helpless in the face of those 'diminishing' king tides.

Just as your claims were, days ago, in the face of raw data and of the simple facts of the matter...

Your persistence is bemusing, but it seems that you are not alone in adopting this particular misguided meme. I'm waiting for Anthony Watts to clutch it to his bosom now that Menne has taken the wind from his surfacestations' sails - perhaps you could send him some photos of your seawall when he starts surfacegauges.org and calls it "Watts Up With Tides?"

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

Can we please limit the "Drongo Saw It With His Own Eyes" infestation to just one thread? Please?

One is not at all surprised to find someone from the UNSW presenting arguments criticising a marine geologist, Professor B Carter, for telling it as it is about sea level rise. Geologist's bread and butter consists of observations of sea levels over millenia and right up to the present, includng the effects of land rise and fall. The models Lambert quotes can't determine anything correctly.

CSIRO models cannot determine the cooling, now admitted to by their CRU colleagues and were party to the scandal surrounding the Himalayan Glaciers. Much closer to home, the inceased droughts on the Murray and increased cyclones (Known to be declining!) were a 'mistake' perhaps. The CSIRO cannot even show us their reasons for claiming carbon dioxide is causing the warming which at present is not happening!
John Nicol

By John Nicol (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

John @43. Bob Carter? The Bob Carter? Gotta hand it to ya. You sure pick the reputable guys.

And...ahem... are you seriously criticising the CSIRO for not showing reasons why increasing CO2 concentrations could be causing warming?

Would you also criticise someone for not explaining why swimming in the ocean can make you wet?

John Nicol (#43)

Firstly, are you by any chance the John Nicol who is chairman of the scientific advisory board of the Australian Climate Science Coalition?

I suggest that you not take any notice of what Professor B Carter says on sea level (or anything else, for that matter). There are many geologists involved in sea-level research, a good example in Australia being Professor Kurt Lambeck at the Australian National University. I'm not aware of Professor B Carter (shouldn't it be R Carter anyway?) having any experience with measurements of recent sea levels.

Could you try again with your second paragraph. I find it very hard to parse. The first sentence seems to be saying that CSIRO Models were involved in the "scandal surrounding the Himalayan Glaciers". Perhaps you could tell us who in (or which model from) CSIRO was involved in this?

The answer to your last sentence, CSIRO doesn't need to show you - it's the Greenhouse effect. Oh, and it is warming - you just need to look at appropriately long time spans.

And could you please ask Professor B Carter when he and his co-authors (John McLean and Chris De Freitas) are going to respond to the comment by Foster et al on their pathetic Journal of Geophysical Research paper?

Neil White

By Neil White (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

I swear there's a script generator out there somewhere, complete with dodgy grammar and entertaining logic-iness. Can't tell whether it's intended to a POE or not though.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 Feb 2010 #permalink

Wow, I just looked up the ACSC website. Nary a bigger source of disinformation have I ever seen. Oh look - Bob Carter and Ian Plimer are members. How surprising.

And even more interesting - they have a link to their kiwi brethren, the NZCSC. You know, the ones who were caught flagrantly lying about their "temperature manipulation" allegations, when they failed to correct for site changes (despite being clearly told why they had to) and spread it all over the web that they'd proven kiwi scientists were fudging data. Gee that allegation went quiet when the truth came out and made numerous people look like doddering old fools, eh?

There are many "Doctors" and "Professors" in the ACSC and affiliated organisations, but it's a great travesty that none of these titles seem to reliably bestow honesty and integrity upon an individual.

"Any local factors that might affect a median or low tide will have precisely the same effect on a spring tide."

Michael,

You really don't have a clue do you?

Do you really believe that dredging out a harbour mouth which increases tide bore causing lower low tides and higher average tides, will increase the height of a king tide above ocean levels?

""Things have improved" as a consequence of building regulations and of engineering advances."

Bernie Baby,

Are you really saying that all it takes to cure SLR is building regs and engineering advances?

Give us a break!

The "things" that have improved, you dill, is the fact that not one cyclone has crossed the east coast, south of the Tropic of Capricorn, since 1976. Even though the great warming panjandrums are telling us that AGW will produce more of these cyclones, the truth is that we are getting less and, combined with no SLR this is giving sea front living a charmed existence.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 20 Feb 2010 #permalink

Bernard,

Your data on Brisbane and the Gold Coast has the last 6 years missing, is non continuous in the case of Bris and woefully short on the GC plus that tide gauge is now gone. Your argument on king tide and HAT is esoteric rubbish.

As I said to you earlier, the meteorological data at the time of of that HAT suits my argument, not yours [my 20 cms would probably become 25 cms if you normalised pressure and had no onshore gradient] but you get it if you wish.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 20 Feb 2010 #permalink

drongo, local tidal factors affect all tides.

Spring tides are not a different creature, they work the same way as other tides.

I suggested a book for you on the other thread. Try cracking it open, you might learn something.

Drongo [tries to swerve](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…):

Do you really believe that dredging out a harbour mouth which increases tide bore causing lower low tides and higher average tides, will increase the height of a king tide above ocean levels?

Drongo, let's forget for a moment that you provide no evidence to support your claim of tide changes of a particular pattern (which I will chase up by the way, so hold on to your seat). You are attempting to float a big red herring here, because it matters not what I think in response to your hypothetical scenario - however carefully one has to consider the cherry-picked nature of the parameter that you selected, the data nevertheless show that, for both Brisbane and the Gold Coast, high tide heights increased over time from the 1980s to the middle of the first decade in the 21st century.

If you think that "dredging" (however relevant it might actually be to the overall matter) doesn't increase king tide levels, which seems to be the implication of the wording of your question, then fine...

So, what other factors did contribute to the increasing high tide maximum level over time?

Are you really saying that all it takes to cure SLR is building regs and engineering advances?

No.

As your mate cohenite likes to say, you are verballing me.

Pull your head in, buster...

Drongo [tries to swerve again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…):

Your data on Brisbane and the Gold Coast has the last 6 years missing, is non continuous in the case of Bris and woefully short on the GC plus that tide gauge is now gone

What do you expect would have happened in the last six years that would buck the two decades of data prior? How would this change support your claim that sea levels are decreasing rather than increasing?

How does the gap in the Brisbane Bar record in any way negate the trend post-1980? How would event occuring during this gap support your claim that sea levels are decreasing rather than increasing?

What does the removal of the Gold Coast gauge do to negate the reocrd whilst it was there? How does its removal support your claim that sea levels are decreasing rather than increasing?

Can you explain exactly why you believe that my "argument on king tide and HAT is esoteric rubbish"?

As I said to you earlier, the meteorological data at the time of of that HAT suits my argument, not yours

Fine.

Show us then your analysis of local barometric and wind conditions, of regional barometric and wind conditions, of recent hydrodynamic/bathymetric shifts (both natural and human-caused), and of ocean current patterns at the time of the January tide, and in your touted tide back in 1963.

Compare and contrast.

How many times now have I asked you for your data/evidence, and how many times have you also been asked to address the questions of science pertaining to this discussion? Would you like me to link you to all of them yet again, just so that you can keep a record of the homework you need to do, and that is backing up?

What are you hiding from drongo? Are you afraid to address the science? Are you intellectually unable to address the science?

Come on bucko. You made some mighty big claims, and in doing so you implied incompetence and/or fraud on behalf of many scientists.

Support your claims.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 Feb 2010 #permalink

3,16 David Duff,

The problem is that you made a big fuss about the figures and yet got them wrong. Didn't you even check what you wrote before posting?

The CSIRO tell us that over 134 years, from 1870 until 2004, the sea rose "almost 20 cm". Of that rise, they tell us, 100 years' worth (the 20th c.) was accounted for by an annual average rise of 1.7mm/yr which accounts for 17cm of the total 20cm. This leaves 3cm of rise to be accounted for by the 30 years that preceded the 20th c. and the 4 years which followed. This means the rise during those years must have been .o88mm a year!
Or put it another way, if the rise was in fact 20cm over 134 years, as the CSIRO tells us, that gives you an average of 15mm/yr, so if anything, Mr. Carter is, dare I say, a tad alarmist!

200 mm/134 years = 1.49 mm/year, (1.5 is close enough IMO).

1.7 mm * 100 years = 170 mm.

That leaves us with 30 mm over 34 years (pre 1900 and post 2000).

30 mm/34 years = 0.88 mm/year, roughly half of the other quoted rates, not 0.088!

Making one factor-of-ten mistake (15, not 1.5) is bad enough when attacking published figures but making a second (0.088, not 0.88) is really not on. I'll be checking your arithmetic from now on!

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 20 Feb 2010 #permalink

"the fact that not one cyclone has crossed the east coast, south of the Tropic of Capricorn, since 1976."

That's an entertainingly specific set of parameters, spangs. What was the frequency before 1976?

If you search the high-carbon footprinted The Google, you can find older SLR graphs with lower trend rises (e.g. IIRC 2002 = 2.4mm/yr) you can then put a recent one next to it and show the recent increase in SLR rate.

Best,

D

Drongo writes:

>*Michael, You really don't have a clue do you? Do you really believe that dredging out a harbour mouth which increases tide bore causing lower low tides and higher average tides, will increase the height of a king tide above ocean levels?*

>*Bernie Baby, Are you really saying that all it takes to cure SLR is building regs and engineering advances? Give us a break!*

>*Try not to be any more boring than you can help, there are better things we could all be doing. We've already thrashed out the SL v temperature chaos comparisons and the "sinking islands". Next please!*

Is there anyone more confident than a fool?

But I won't call Drongo a complete fool, he knows enough that he needs to keep constructing these false allusions and strawmen to divert focus from the terminal weakness of his argument.

Drongo remind us how many data point you have? And based on your "data" do you seriously believe you have overturned the GMSL results of the worlds most competent research organisations?

You are a case-study of denial. How much can one person argue black is white? Fascinating.

Per capita measures on their own dont tell you enough about GLOBAL warming.

They have to be related to the area of the GLOBE occupied by that nation state.

When that is done, and account of taken of Australias large land area, and equally large territorial sea area.. then guess what...

The order is reversed, and the pissy Europpean states are at the top land we are on the bottom.

It is utterly absurd to talk about a global problem and not do this and not relate to the area of responsibilty.

One of could not expect the brain dead bozos in Canberra to comprehend these logical constructs, they are still struggling with a proper and consistent definition of CC.

God help us

Per capita measures on their own dont tell you enough about GLOBAL warming.

[my emphasis]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

When that is done, and account of taken of Australias large land area, and equally large territorial sea area.. then guess what...

...we're one of the worst per capita emitters.

One of could would not expect the not-brain-dead bozos in Canberra to comprehend pay any attention to these illogical constructs...

Fixed it for you.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 21 Feb 2010 #permalink

Mmm, CO2 emission per unit area.

Monckton and the large land owning lords would love Dr Who's new scheme. Ranking of CO2 emissions per unit area. The Aristocrat's rather than the democrats choice.

Blame those greedy poor in Mumbai rather than the landed Gentry.

Imagine the economics of chasing out the poor. Sounds delightful!

I think global warming and global inequality already bring enough pressures towards genocide, we don't need "Dr Who's" little fantasy to twist the knife further.

In future I must remember that Mr. Forrest is one of the new 21st c. style gentlemen possessed as he is of all the wit, charm and courtesy of a rabid rat.

Turning to 'Truesceptic', I have no difficulty in owning up to errors. Looking back from advanced age I can see (now) that my life is strewn with them which is part of the reason I frequently doubt certainty and people who swear by it! Incidentally, my error in printing ".o88mm" is obviously a typo given that I (inadvertantly) hit the lower case letter 'o' and not the number '0'.

However, no-one seems to have bothered with my main point concerning the CSIRO figures which appear to show such an enormous change from 30 years of one century compared to 100 years of the next. I'm no statisticiam but I would have expected them to be somewhat closer. Nor, 'Truesceptic', was I "attacking" the figures, I was just pointing out a puzzle in them and hoping that someone would explain it.

Someone else above decried Holgate's figures because they are based on only 9 measuring units, which is a fair criticism, but on the other hand, they do provide figures going back (I think) a hundred years which is considerably longer than the satellite figures. Again, I have no remit to promote Holgate but surely those 9 measurement devices are worth some study. Someone else provided links to other papers by Holgate for which thanks adn I will get round to reading them soonest.

They have to be related to the area of the GLOBE occupied by that nation state.

No, that makes no sense.

The per-capita scheme is more sensible and here's why. From an equal rights perspective, every person in the world should have the same right to having a CO2 footprint as everyone else. At the country level, this obviously translates to a per-capita measure.

Conversely, the surface area scheme is not sensible. A small country would be allowed to be as wasteful as they want.

I enjoy comments that refer to those you disagree with as rabid rats.

By This really is… (not verified) on 21 Feb 2010 #permalink

David Duff, what you describe as a "typo" isn't even the primary problem in your approach to the sea-level statistics. Your method is logically flawed. Comparing the average of numbers from the middle of the dataset with the average of numbers from the beginning and end of the dataset isn't going to tell you anything meaningful about trends within the data.

Here's a simple example to illustrate. Suppose, every ten years, we take some measurements. If we look at these measurements, we can see an obvious upward trend:

1889 -- 10
1899 -- 10
1909 -- 10
1919 -- 10
1929 -- 10
1939 -- 10
1949 -- 20
1959 -- 20
1969 -- 20
1979 -- 20
1989 -- 20
1999 -- 20
2009 -- 30

What would happen if we used your method to evaluate these numbers? We would see that the average in the 20th century was 16. The average in other decades, however, works out to 16.67. Does that mean that there isn't an upward trend?

As an aside, David, if people like Ian Forrester are rude to you, I think that's because your posts at Deltoid tend to be smug and condescending... and for the most part, you're condescending while simultaneously being wrong. In this instance, however, the tone in your post was reasonable. The post was wrong both mathematically and logically, but still, you were at least politely wrong.

I'm of the opinion that it's easier to have a productive discussion when we don't assume the worst about each other. I wouldn't expect someone to be willing to help me understand something if I began the conversation by calling that person an idiot.

Regards,
Bruce

In the area I live, the land mass is only sinking by about 0.5mm per year.
However the local Tidal gauge registers a sea level rise of about 5mm to 6mm per year.

In the area I live, the land mass is only sinking by about 0.5mm per year. However the local Tidal gauge registers a sea level rise of about 5mm to 6mm per year.

Oh sure, but have you asked some random bloke who goes for a swim there every now and then, hmmm?

I didn't think so.

You and your so-called facts.

Gaz:
>Oh sure, but have you asked some random bloke who goes for a swim there every now and then, hmmm?
I didn't think so.
You and your so-called facts.

Heh, heh, heh...

I downloaded the gauge data last week from the British Oceanographic Data Centre web site.

But some time this year I'll be more scientific and go to the beach asking for peoples opinion.

" Conversely, the surface area scheme is not sensible. A small country would be allowed to be as wasteful as they want."

Conversely also small countries in area with large populations will be sending their emmissions across their, borders because they have no hope of absorbing any within their own boundaries.

I did say per capita on its own, doesnt tell the full story.

The AGW science also says that emmissions also have a regional climactic effect.Further I assume that the Climate Change Regulatory Authority ( I love that name for its sheer stupidity), would be trying to encourage people to see that their emmissions are offset locally

Like I said the brain dead bozos from the Brindabellas wouldnt understand this ..too busy polishing their already shiny arses and currying favour with the worst PM ever.... worse than Whitlam

Paul UK,

You could always step across the ditch and check with the cheese choppers.

They'll tell you that there is no accelleration in SLR and that SLs were higher in the MWP when they didn't have satellites telling them otherwise.

Because the "random bloke" has more to lose sooner you'll find that they have better evidence and better obs.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 21 Feb 2010 #permalink

Shorter Dr Which,

*I concede that CO2/m^2 is a worse measure than CO2 per capita, but such misdirection is the only way I could think of to try and support The Oz's gross distortion.*

Notice how denialists just love to reduce the clarity of their message in what I imagine they think is their way of pretending familiarity with a subject:
"no accelleration in SLR"
"SLs were higher "
"in the MWP "
"better obs"
"in the case of Bris"
"short on the GC"
"at the time of of that HAT"

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 21 Feb 2010 #permalink

I notice cohnite is pushing the same line that he could not support in argument here:

Anthony Cox (aka Cohnite) conveniently leaves out the the bit where he is actually comparing surface SW (shortwave) radiation with OLR (Outgoing Longwave Raidation at the Top Of Atmosphere) for the tropics only.

As secretary for some climate 'skepic's group I wonder if Cox is among those that Hamilton is calling out?

Witch DR

Your post is meaningless.

As for including a Co2/m/2 figure had you thought of the possibilty that it would then be a measure to indicate perhaps where populations should be reduced, because the environment cant handle it.. eg Japan and Europe

But then as the per capita alone measure came out of Europe, its no wonder they dont want it to be anything different. Cant have it both ways for a global problem

Drongo, the thing I find unclear is why anything short of a mental illness would make you think your unwritten dataset trumps the CSIRO's expert, considered science.

CSIRO shows a 1.6mm/year rise, accelerating to 3mm/year in recent times, and we are looking at projections of something between 20cm-70cm by 2100. These are basic facts which are not disproven by your fantasy dataset.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 21 Feb 2010 #permalink

Janet,

As a champion of the "Doltoids War on Sceptics" he would need all the plusses he could muster particularly with a philosophy about holocaust deniers being relatively blameless but climate sceptics will kill us all.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 21 Feb 2010 #permalink

>*As for including a Co2/m/2 figure had you thought of the possibilty that it would then be a measure to indicate perhaps where populations should be reduced, because the environment cant handle it.. eg Japan and Europe*

Shorter Which Dr,

>I would like to use the metric of CO2/m^2 to remove people from Japan and Europe and send them to the least hospitable place on the planet such as large uninhabited desserts.

>Don't ask me for details of how this would work, because I'm just saying any old crap in a futile attempt to provide cover for the gross misrepresentation of the Oz.

Vince,

CSIRO may be "basic facts" to you but as someone famous once said "include me out". Like the cheese choppers I understand very well that SL vigorously seeks equilibrium and when after 47 years nothing is happening in MBY I dont wet the bed.

When you've checked your back yard as thoroughly, come and talk to me.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 21 Feb 2010 #permalink

Mr Cred eh? Thanks janet.

Anything specific though?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 21 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo,

- who said "include me out"?

- What are "cheese choppers"?

- If "SL" "vigorously seeks equilibrium", how come I can surf?

- "47 years nothing is happening" is your fantasy, disproved by the facts.

- "Don't wet the bed", I beg to differ - you seem quite hysterical.

- I won't be conducting any personal checks for sea level rise in my back yard as I have a different area of expertise and intend to rely on the trained experts instead.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 21 Feb 2010 #permalink

>*Anything specific though?*

Remind us how many data points you used to overturn the worlds research organisation measures of Sea Level Rise?

And are you really concealing data in your private life's diaries or did you just want to make an allusion to possible data that doesn't really exist?

after 47 years nothing is happening in MBY I dont wet the bed

After 70 years nothing was happening and people didn't wet the bed on the 6th of January 2009.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 21 Feb 2010 #permalink

6th of January 2009

6th of February 2009.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 21 Feb 2010 #permalink

"Vigorously seeks equilibrium" is my new favourite phrase. Someone's hitting the thesaurus!

.....particularly with a philosophy about holocaust deniers being relatively blameless but climate sceptics will kill us all.

Huh?

Alright, I recommend laying off the hard stuff. It's not good for your health.

Climate sceptics won't "kill" us. They just desperately want to bury decades of scientific research and advancement, which may adversely affect how we deal with our future. That's all.

Spangled Drongo (#81)

You state "...I understand very well that SL vigorously seeks equilibrium...".

So, the graph shown here is an example of something "vigorously seeking equilibrium", is it? Do you have any idea at all of what you're talking about? The water in the ocean fills whatever space it needs to fill. The volume changes because of thermal expansion or contraction, and because of exchanges with the atmosphere and reservoirs in and on the land (ice sheets, glaciers, rivers, lakes, groundwater etc). In addition the shape of the ocean basins changes through geological processes on various time scales causing changes of apparent sea level.

Where did you pull that impressive sounding phrase from?

Neil White

By Neil White (not verified) on 21 Feb 2010 #permalink

One key reason why holocaust denial is a crime against humanity, it that it increases the risk of future holocaust.

If we forget (aided by denial) the ideology and dynamics that allowed the holocaust against the Jews (and other), we shorten the return rate of such practices.

There is a similar risk for environmental holocaust; If we deny the implications of current unsustainable practices we reduce the time and resource for our civilization to mitigate foreseeable holocausts.

Bruce, thanks for that explanation but it wasn't me who picked out one hundred years from a statistical record of 134 years, it was the way the figures were presented in the original post up above. Nor am I disputing a rise in sea levels over time - anymore than I dispute a change in global temperatures over time - but I am interested in finding out how the measurements are made, and that's before we even get on to the subject of how they are then adjusted.

You, I feel sure, will enjoy the delicious irony in the timing of this headline from The Guardian:

"Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels"

Even more delicious si the fact that the poor chap who originally wrote the paper for Nature Geoscience mag doesn't know whether his forecasts were too high or too low!

Read all about it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-…

Like I said, the jury's still out.

Finally, I don't think I have ever begun a conversation with an insult, although I might have ended one or two that way if sufficiently provoked.

David Duff writes:

>*Like I said, the jury's still out.*

Problem for Duff is that he doesn't know what the jury is debating.

You are right about one thing Witch Dr, you are peddling any old crap

It isnt gross misrepresentation of the Oz as you call it.It is actually allowing the natural characteristics of the Oz to be allowed, for in any idiot league table.

It says someting about the piss poor negotiating skills of those representing our country that they allow the stupid per capita measure to run and be used in negative way without consideration being given to the huge area we are responsible for..and its abilty to soak up our own and others Co2 ..eg the Japs.

Vince,

Sam Goldwyn said "Include me out".

Cheese Choppers are the Dutch.

You surf and you don't know about waves!!??

What IS your field of expertise?

Chris,

You mustn't've got it the first time but temperatures and SLs are a bit different. eg temps vary somewhat with latitude whereas SLs "vigorously seek equilibrium" world wide.

John,

That "thesaurus" a good drop?

Mike,

You're not paying attention. It's not the sceptics that want to bury data. You need to speak to Phil Jones and Hockey Stick Mick.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Dr Voodoo Who do,

Give us the details of how your scheme would work. Show us that you are not full of it.

How exactly do you plan use the your Aristocrat's metric in place of the humanitarian and democratic per capita metrics?

You have had ample opportunity to develop a lucid case, but you've failed dismally. I'm simply calling you on it every time you fail. Now give the details.

By Witch Dr Voodo… (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

And so's you all can understand SLs a little better, while you bathe tonight read up a bit on Archimedes.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

:

In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".

As we all know, this couldn't really happen because Rahmstorf is part of the global warming conspiracy.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

>*Ah, Jakerman, so you agree there is a jury and presumably that it is still in deliberation.*

Sure do, as do those who asserted the science is settled on the question of the rising mean temperature.

Mr. Jakerman, I am confused again - hey, no surpise there, then!

Those who assert that the science is settled agree that the jury is still out!

Is this similar to the sort of thing 'St. Barack of Obama' and his politbureau mean when they say the 'Gitmo' prisoners will have a fair trial and will be found guilty?

David Duff, you're mistaken. The CSIRO excerpt that Tim cited mentions that they have 134 years of data, and mentions the rate of increase in a contiguous 100-year period within that data. There's nothing at all wrong with that. You were the one who tried to compare that 100-year period to the remaining years, and you did it with a method that isn't logically sound, for the reasons I explained above. And on top of that, you got the math wrong.

Regarding the Guardian article you cite: As jakerman points out, that just shows that you don't seem to know what the jury is debating.

[Mangled Drongo](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

I'm a "cheese chopper" from a line of clog-wearing, dike-building, windmill-riding, canal-vaulting, ice-skating stereotypical Dutchmen. And let me tell you, my family and friends back in the Netherlands are very concerned at the changing sea level.

Congratulations though on the progression of your discourse. I didn't think that you could descend much further, but you have shown that you can sink lower than a maggot in a grave with your racist slurs. I notice too that you have completely abandoned any pretense at being able to address the science and the substantive points on this and on the [Bolt in one graph thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php), after I asked you [not once](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…) but [twice](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…) on this thread to so do.

A little while back [I posted an exerpt from Erik the Viking](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/what_do_superfreakonomics_and.p…), mocking the attitude of those such as yourself. I realise now that too many words overload your brain, so I will direct you to Rixaeton's post that [convenient links to the pretty-pictures version of the same](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_hate_mail_campaign_against…).

The sad thing is, I know you won't understand any more than the Hy-Brasilians did, why your theories are bunkum.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

In my area not only are the beaches widening and the map of Australia expanding but the sandbanks offshore are also increasing.

Um, drongo, did it ever occur to you that this could be because ocean currrents are depositing sand on certain coastlines, while possibly taking it away from others? Also, you may want to remember that there are plenty of people in the US who observe their coastlines RECEDING due to the same effect: as in, THEIR BEACH HOUSES ARE GETTING WASHED AWAY both because of rising sea-levels, and because of beach erosion.

drongo is an idiot for thinking he's refuted rising sea-levels; and doubly stupid for thinking his arguments even sound plausible.

By Raging Bee (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo said:
>You could always step across the ditch and check with the cheese choppers.
They'll tell you that there is no accelleration in SLR and that SLs were higher in the MWP when they didn't have satellites telling them otherwise.

Actually it is the French that provide the longer sea level records that do show the rates have accelerated and compare well to UK records. Suggest you check Roeland Gehrels work.

That should have been Roland Gehrel.

I back some of the other calls here to 'cage' Drongo in their own area. They are time wasters and are not contributing anything useful.

David Duff writes:

>*Mr. Jakerman, I am confused again - hey, no surpise there, then!
Those who assert that the science is settled agree that the jury is still out!*

I can help you there David Duff, start by not cherry picking (and miscontextualizing) my quote. I'll adjust your question accordingly:

>*Those who assert that the science is settled [on the question of the rising mean temperature] agree that the jury is still out [on others issues]!*

The problem for David Duff is that he doesn't know what the scientific jury is debating. Duff seems to be hoping that if there is uncertainty on any question then there must be equal uncertainty on the fundamentals.

The science is settled that the earth is warming. Other issues where the science is in overwhelming agreement (with very strong evidence) is that humans have contributed to that warming.

There is sufficient evidence to have high confidence that humans activity produced most of the warming since the the middle of the 20th century.

There is considerable evidence supporting calculations of the climate sensitivity to the enhanced greenhouse effect. This gives us a probability range for future warming in response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

There are other internal dynamics that have lower degrees of certainty. And fine resolution timing of specific events is one of them. E.g. how long have massive ice sheets melted in response to warming in the past?

How much more of the bleeding obvious do you need Voodoo witch nit.

The current league table is based upon a per capita in the vain hope that as a league table it apportions the responsibility for Co2 emmissions equitably.

However as we are talking about a global problem that needs to deal with nation states, a per capita doesnt tell anyone anything about the real impact of these emmissions on the environment, because a lot of the Co2 is absorbed locally in the bio mass and the sea.

So a real measure of the impact we are having is pretty low compared to European countries for eg.

Perhaps an even better measure for a league table would be total emmissions/total area.

..but per capita on its own is crap.

Like I said, if Australia and others hadnt been so piss weak and dumb in their negotiations much better measures could have been constructed, with benefits all round.

Fail Dr Voodoo,

How would you work your Aristocrat's measure? Sounds like its only purpose is for posturing.

Supporters of the democratic CO2 per captia metric want to allocate targets based on their measure. You have't made the same case for your genocidal metric.

Prove yourself to be of substance, provide the details. Your continued failing to show the how you would used your Aristocrat's measure shows the opposite of substance.

Pauk UK,

You quote a sinking of the land in your area of 0.5mm a year but a sea level rise in excess of that.

My question is, how on earth can you state that the particular sinking of the land in the area you live in is 0.5mm a year? Who does and where are these measurements published and verified, if they can be at all?

Voodo nit wit

Whats " genocidal" , " aristocratic" about my suggestion for refining the league table to take account of land/sea area involving global warming and mitigation.

You seem to have a problem with understanding simple concepts, and comprehending that per capitas on its own doesnt tell the full/right story.

Forget it sweet heart I am obviously wasting my time.

If the deniers had any brains perhaps they'd point out that the CSIRO sea level chart shows a much more uniform rise than the University of Colorado sea level chart, despite both claiming to be from the same TOPEX/Jason source data.

Does anyone have any idea why that might be?

Perhaps the great global climate change consipiracy was able to afford bribes for CSIRO but not for Uni Colorado....

On local sea level observations, I've really noticed in the last couple of years that the beach around the northern Sunshine Coast appears to be receeding. Sand dunes are eroding to the point of undermining trees that look to have been there at least 10-20 years. Whether this is sea level rise or changing currents or changing sand management practices somewhere or something I haven't thought of I will not be so hasty as to draw a conclusion on.

By Michael Hauber (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Bernard,

Cheese Choppers is racist like Beefeaters for Poms or Froggies for French. Get real!

Your family, friends and ancestors have been dyking polders for thousands of years for very good reasons and yes, they are probably more concerned about SLs than anyone else on earth but they use PLAN B not plan A and they have coped marvelously for millenia.

What you have to do Bernie, is to sort the fairy tales from reality.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

John,

That "thesaurus" a good drop?

Mine was funnier.

Michael Hauber,

If you paid attention you'd find that that had already been done. Possibly it's due to one applying the inverse barometer and the other not. But there are so many other "adjustments" for satellites that if you weren't sceptical you'd be foolish.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Voodoo Which Dr,

>*You seem to have a problem with understanding simple concepts, and comprehending that per capitas on its own doesnt tell the full/right story.*

Dr Who Do, this is a blatant strawman, no metric provides "the full story". And you've failed to show how your Aristocrat's metric provides the "right" story.

You have been given ample opportunity to support your claim that the Oz was correct, and you've failed dismally by not even providing detail of our your Aristocrat's metric would be employed, let alone how it is better than the per Capita metric.

If you were really savvy you could have made a shot at trying to combine the humanitarian metric of CO2 per capita with your CO2 /m^2 metric to argue how a combined metric could work. But you didn't, I guess you weren't able.

[My initial judgement of your game](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…) has been supported by your subsequent responses. You have completely failed to justify your Aristocrat's metric in place of the democratic CO2 per capita metric.

You could have provided the detail of how you would operationalise your preferred measures, as the CO2 per capita advocates have done, but you failed.

Evidence shows you intend to use your metric for nothing more than attempting apologetics for the gross distortion made by the Oz.

Then you ask:

>*Whatâs " genocidal" , " aristocratic" about my suggestion for refining the league table to take account of land/sea area involving global warming and mitigation.*

What's Aristocratic about your CO2 per area of land metric compared to the democratic CO2 per capita? Simply if you own more land can get more privilege, more pollution rights, and hence greater feedback/concentration of wealth.

What's Genocidal about your CO2 per area of land metric compared to the humanitarian CO2 per capita? Your genocidal metric if deployed enhances incentives for land grabs and rewards population destruction has much as CO2 reduction.

If the nations set targets according to your Aristocrats metric CO2/land area, it would produce powerfully perverse incentives. Perverse incentives that would have most disturbing weight in regions of high vulnerablity, where desperation is high and civic stablity is low.

This is what you would have found if you went to the effort of operationalizing the detail of your metric. But you didn't make that effort so you didn't see your folly.

By Dr Voodoo Who Do (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Micheal ask:

>*the CSIRO sea level chart shows a much more uniform rise than the University of Colorado sea level chart, despite both claiming to be from the same TOPEX/Jason source data. Does anyone have any idea why that might be?*

To which Drongo jumps in with:

>*If you paid attention you'd find that that had already been done. Possibly it's due to one applying the inverse barometer and the other not.*

But Drongo should have some self awareness:

[Drongo previously asked]:(http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…)
>*Why does the U of Col get it so differently from CSIRO?*

To which it was [expalined for him](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…):

>Why are they different? 60 day smoothing vs 3 month running mean; inverse barometer applied vs not applied.

Mark,

Thanks for that. Looks like I also don't pay attention.

Now, about the rest of the story...? Do you know how the rest of the "adjustments" are done?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Mr Drongo ask:

>*Do you know how the rest of the "adjustments" are done?*

Mr Drongo you asked a similar question in the previous thread and were appropriately [directed to a paper](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…) by appropriate team at the 'U of Col'.

The short answer is I do not know the detial of how satelite ajustments are done. The slightly less short anwer is that itt is not mine to be expert in every detail, but it is mine to judge crediblity and more importantly processes.

So my acceptance of the 'U of Col' and CSIRO Sea Level data is informed by my humble knowledge of some basic process in their methodology.

1) They publish their methods and results and are hence open to critique;

2) They cross check results and methods with multiple inputs from multiple sources;

3) They employ feedback responses to find error and improve calibration;

4)Their critics have not been able to overturn their resutls. In fact Monckton conceeded something to the effect that such satelite measures are the best avaliable and are quite precise.

I am also informed by my experience with so called 'skeptics' who do not emply sound process are are not self correcting.

Mark,

No answer? Why, because you don't know, because you can't score points or because it's a bit dodgy?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Give over drongo.

If sea level rise continues as the best science indicates that it will, not even the engineering aptitude of the Dutch will be able to prevent some rather nasty indundation of parts of the country during extreme weather events.

And over on the other side of the Channel, the English are starting to worry about their low-lying eastern coastal regions, even more than the Dutch do about their dikes.

However, let's not permit ourselves to be distracted from your original claim. Remember when I referred you [to this](http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2009.pdf), and specifically to figure 17? How exactly is it that these are data refuted by your seawall "observations"? Perhaps in your response you could also refute the weight of evidence more generally for sea level rise [in the South Pacific](http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60102/IDO60102.2009_1.pdf)

But perhaps you really are just interested in what lies close to home.

And it is interesting â for example, [this reference](http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2009.pdf) illustrates the point I made somewhere about the fact that raw tidal data should not be used directly to make inferences about sea level rise. Have a look at the Brisbane data â it is apparent that the datum reference for the 1967-1973 gauge readings is shifted downward with respect to the post-1980 datum. When the data are corrected for the disparity in datum points (amongst other necessary corrections), the annual mean sea level trend for Brisbane is determined to be 1.82 mm/yr - increase.

Of course, you are certain to dispute it by saying that the data are fudged, and your seawall shows a particular relationship with king tide events under disparate meteorological conditions. Once again I say "fine". Show exactly where the professionals are wrong in their analyses, and show us your own data and analysis.

Why can you not do this?

Let's begin with a simple question to start things rolling: considering figure 2 in the last link, which gauges do you dispute, and upon what basis do you so do?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Mark,

Thanks for that. Please ignore my impatience.

But if they are correct and yet not accelerating as is also claimed, how does this tie in with past higher SLs?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink
After 70 years nothing was happening and people didn't wet the bed on the 6th of January 2009.

drongo:

temperatures and SLs are a bit different. eg temps vary somewhat with latitude whereas SLs "vigorously seek equilibrium" world wide.

I wasn't talking about temperatures at different latitudes and that's beside the point anyway. The fact you ignore is that even the whole-year average sea level at one location can vary more than 100 mm from one year to the next. Is that your idea of "vigorously seek equilibrium"? What a load of cr@p you talk.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Your up yourself Voodoo nit wit

No where have I said or implied that one would replace the other but it is additional to. On its own per capita doesnt tell the true/real story.

You aristocratic argument is just desperate greenoid academic twaddle.

Even the use of the word aristocratic gives you away.

Mr Drongo asks:

>*But if they are correct and yet not accelerating as is also claimed, how does this tie in with past higher SLs?*

The short answer is in [one picture](http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/summary…).

A less short answer: its is perhaps too early to judge a significant acceleration from just 20 years of satellite data.

None the less there is evidence of acceleration in the longer record eg:

Finally SL changes can occur in a non-linear rate, as thresholds are crossed. And as the picture (above) suggests, SLR is happening faster than expected.

[David Duff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

Am I to take it that you are barracking for drongo and [his side-kick Graham](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…)?

It appears that you are a little concerned about the nature of Holgate's data, and how it compares with other results for sea level rise. I think that I have linked to [this page](http://www.sealevelrise.info/cms/Reports%20and%20Papers) previously, but if not, consider for example figure 1 of [this briefing](http://www.sealevelrise.info/access/repository/resource/0401e97c-acde-1…) specifically.

Holgate (and Woodworth) agree very well with Church et al, and with the satellite data. There's no wiggle room to dispute the demonstrated rise of sea level, unless one is going to don a lead-foil cap and accuse the Climatati of having a Bathymetrati chapter of co-conspiratorial brethren.

Oh, right...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Bernard,

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.

For the umpteenth time I repeat that it is only my estuarine benchmark that I refer to. Many factors increase HATs but one of the few that don't is SLs going nowhere.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Silly old Duffer:

Is this similar to the sort of thing 'St. Barack of Obama' and his politbureau mean when they say the 'Gitmo' prisoners will have a fair trial and will be found guilty?

Perhaps different from the previous government's idea that waterboarding those prisoners was a reasonable interrogation technique.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo.

You might like to compare [the annual mean sea level trend for Brisbane](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…) with Holgate's and Woodworth's mean rate of sea level rise for the last for decades of the 20th century, as given in figure 1 of the briefing that I [mentioned above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

How far does the Bathymetrati conspiracy go?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Dr Who writes:

>*No where have I said or implied that one would replace the other but it is additional to. On its own per capita doesnt tell the true/real story.*

More straw from the voodoo denialist. I challenged you to show how you could use your Aristocrat's metric to tell the "right" story.

One demostration of how bankrupt your lasts reply is that it is refuted by [the post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…) you were supposedly responding to:

>Dr Who Do, this is a blatant strawman, no metric provides "the full story". And you've failed to show how your Aristocrat's metric provides the "right" story.

>You have been given ample opportunity to support your claim that the Oz was correct, and you've failed dismally by not even providing detail of our your Aristocrat's metric would be employed, let alone how it is better than the per Capita metric.

>**If you were really savvy you could have made a shot at trying to combine the humanitarian metric of CO2 per capita with your CO2 /m^2 metric to argue how a combined metric could work. But you didn't, I guess you weren't able.**

>You could have provided the detail of how you would operationalise your preferred measures, as the CO2 per capita advocates have done, but you failed.

Fail, fail and more fail.

By Dr Voodoo Who Do (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Failed Dr Who says:

>*You aristocratic argument is just desperate greenoid academic twaddle. Even the use of the word aristocratic gives you away.*

In other words you are reduced to empty unsupported name calling in the face your inablity to respond sensibly to [this explanation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…):

>Then [Dr Who] ask:

>>*Whatâs " genocidal" , " aristocratic" about my suggestion for refining the league table to take account of land/sea area involving global warming and mitigation.*

>What's Aristocratic about your CO2 per area of land metric compared to the democratic CO2 per capita? Simply if you own more land can get more privilege, more pollution rights, and hence greater feedback/concentration of wealth.

>What's Genocidal about your CO2 per area of land metric compared to the humanitarian CO2 per capita? Your genocidal metric if deployed enhances incentives for land grabs and rewards population destruction has much as CO2 reduction.

>If the nations set targets according to your Aristocrats metric CO2/land area, it would produce powerfully perverse incentives. Perverse incentives that would have most disturbing weight in regions of high vulnerablity, where desperation is high and civic stablity is low.

>This is what you would have found if you went to the effort of operationalizing the detail of your metric. But you didn't make that effort so you didn't see your folly.

By Dr Voodoo Who Do (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

[Drongo](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

Nice to see that you have taken on board seriously my explanation to you of Highest Astronomical Tides, after you [were so confused about such in the beginning](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

With respect to the flood of 1974, you are possibly referring to the system that also resulted in the [wreck of the Sygna](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sygna) off Stockton Beach. I well remember that night, because a huge tree came down in the grounds of the local school and woke people for hundreds of meters around.

Whether or not this is the weather to which you refer, what on earth does your flood say about sea level rise? My point, and that of others, is that one cannot use such extreme stochastic meteorological events with which to construct an accurate measure of sea level rise to date.

This is a completely different point to saying that future sea level rise (especially if the rate of such increases) will compound the effects of extreme stochastic meteorological events. It appears that you are now confabulating the two.

Oh, and with respect to:

Many factors increase HATs but one of the few that don't [sic] is SLs going nowhere.

As [I have previous explained to you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), sea level rise is accounted for in a prediction of a Highest Astronomical Tide, so of course sea level rise will not "increase HATs", except where such sea level rise increase also alters local hydrodynamic characteristics.

You really are the master of strawmen, red herrings, confabulation, obfuscation, avoidance and other sundry techniques of dissemblance, aren't you?

Are you actually constitutionally capable of making a direct, evidence-supported, coherent point?

Huh?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

drongo:

Many factors increase HATs but one of the few that don't is SLs going nowhere.

One of the many things that old drongo doesn't realize is the effect on his credibility when his arguments end in a strawman.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Well mr Voodo nit wit I would have thought that it was a no brainer that with the area metric included, the nation states with a large area and relatively low populations would be encouraged under the global protocols to preserve and enhance their areas of bio mass so that the maximum amount of Co2 was soaked up eg Brazil, Russia, Australia parts of Africa etc.

So what was a negative under the per capita alone measure gets turned into a positive

No wonder people are getting dis enchanted with academics

Dr Who writes:

>*it was a no brainer that with the area metric included...*

How would you include it? The details are important.

>*nation states with a large area and relatively low populations would be encouraged under the global protocols to preserve and enhance their areas of bio mass so that the maximum amount of Co2 was soaked up eg Brazil, Russia, Australia parts of Africa etc.*

You continue to ignore the flip side. CO2 per capita encourages preservation of bio mass as does CO2 per m^2. But the flip side of your genocidal metric is the power of its perverse incentives.

Not only is your metric is open to abuse, but you haven't shown how including your metric with the per captia metric provides a more usesable or better metric than CO2 per captia alone.

With CO2 per capita, the total CO2 allocation is dependent of agreed targets, so the burden grows and shrinks (depending on the population) but does so in a more equally way.

Your metric changes that, and it says those with more land can burn more and those with less land use less.

How would you prevent your metric from driving people out of Europe and Japane and into where? Russia?, the Amazon? the Congo? How is pushing people into biomass hotspots going to preserve those hot spots?

By Dr Voodoo Who Do (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Dr Who writes:

>*I would have thought that it was a no brainer that with the [CO2 per unit] area metric included, the nation states with a large area and relatively low populations would be encouraged under the global protocols to preserve and enhance their areas of bio mass so that the maximum amount of Co2 was soaked up eg Brazil, Russia, Australia parts of Africa etc.*

How does allocating CO2 rights according to land area ecourage the *maximum amount of Co2 [...]soaked up*?

Its the price on carbon that tends toward CO2 efficiency. Dr Who is just allocating the carbon permits in a different way. Dr Who allocates by land area rather than per person. In effect the major difference is Dr Who wants a system that rewards those who have more land area. (You are a white Australian arn't you Dr Who.)

I wonder what arguments would have been tried on by those who argued to keep the status quo back when only land owners could vote?

"sea level rise is accounted for in a prediction of a Highest Astronomical Tide"

But in spite of that Bernie, old chap, at my place it was 20 cms below 1963 readings. Sad I know , but true.

That's the main "evidence supported, coherent point" I have been trying to make for a couple of weeks but denialism amongst Doltoids is not diffident.

Now what would you have me do? 1/ Take you all there and show you and you'd believe me? 2/ Take you all there in midwinter at midnight during the next HAT and you'd believe me? or 3/ The above plus take you all there in another 47 years and you'd all believe me?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Yes, Spangled Drongo, you need to publish your data.

That's where we get our information from - people who publish their data and people who analyse it and people who generally contribute to our state of knowledge in this area.
The published data shows a current average 3mm/year rise in sea level.

So far *you* have contributed nothing beyond typing a hell of a lot of empty words.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Well its pretty easy to spot the greenies, who wouldnt know an asset if they tripped over one.

Tell me, will land biomass soak up co2 or not.?

Will the sea be soaking up co2 or not?

If a nation state has large land area and large sea area why shouldnt they be expected and required to accommodate theirs and other states Co2--- it would be happening anyway.

Doesnt suit the real agenda does it to consider it this this way.

No wonder people are getting very disenchanted about academia in general.

Deliberately dense drongo:

another 47 years and you'd all believe me

We're still waiting for you to explain what your "vigorously seek equilibrium" means. i.e. what does it have to do with the undeniable fact that even average sea level at one location varies quite significantly from year to year or month to month or shorter periods. e.g. the annual average sea level in 1911 at the Sydney gauge was not bested for 45 years. Imagine what a single king tide could do.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Well its pretty easy to spot the greenies

Even easier to spot strawmen, e.g.

Tell me, will land biomass soak up co2 or not.?

Will the sea be soaking up co2 or not?

Also:

If a nation state has large land area and large sea area why shouldnt they be expected and required to accommodate theirs and other states Co2

And why, pray tell, would they be interested in doing that?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Dr who failed,

You've laid down your ideological agenda pretty clearly, now all you have to do is back up you claims, which you've failed to do so far.

Now the Dr who failed so many times asks:

>*Tell me, will land biomass soak up co2 or not.? Will the sea be soaking up co2 or not?*

Which are redundant questions, what the Dr who failed needs to ask, is how would allocating more CO2 permits to people who have more land make nature work better or be fair? It would do neither. Giving more emissions permits to people with more land doesn't protect that land, it just gives people an unequal share of emissions.

Based on his recent performance I doubt the Dr who failed will get it, I predict more retreat to his idealogical name calling. A sign of his inability to defend his bankrupt argument.

By Dr Voodoo Who Do (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Dr Who you've dodged my question, I asked:

>How does allocating CO2 rights according to land area ecourage *the maximum amount of Co2 [...]soaked up?*

Its the price on carbon that promotes CO2 efficiency. DW is allocating the carbon permits in a different way, and DW's way is not more efficient. Dr Who allocates by land area rather than per person. In effect the difference is DW wants a system that rewards those who have more land.

143
Yes, Spangled Drongo, you need to publish your data.

Vince, I've been telling you and the rest of your lot for days. How many times do you need? I've also told a couple of govt scientists.

Doltoid O'Neill,

You apparently didn't take my advice about reading up on Archimedes in the bath last night or the penny may have dropped. Anyway, give it a go tonight and try pushing the water up one end.
Also don't try comparing SL threats with bushfire threats. They're apples and oranges and you'll find that any SLR caused by AGW will give you plenty of warning. That is of course if you check for yourself.......

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Dr Who - in reality, the seas soak up CO2 up to a point, but then the upper layers which can take up the most CO2 will become more saturated and reduce their uptake. Therefore the response is unlikely to be linear or identical over time.
For biomass, CO2 is already being absorbed and resulting in a slight increase in biomass. THis can be aided by proper land use care, but large regions such as the Amazon may well become CO2 producers when their climate changes over the next century, and I think the same goes for some of the boreal forests as well.

Dave:
>My question is, how on earth can you state that the particular sinking of the land in the area you live in is 0.5mm a year? Who does and where are these measurements published and verified, if they can be at all?

Well like all good scientists, I asked the bloke swimming down at the beach. If it's good for Australian media, it must be good for me.

drongo:

You apparently didn't take my advice about reading up on Archimedes in the bath

So your points in your bath vary in average level by more than 100 mm like points in the ocean, do they? Riiight.

Stupid old drongo, you still don't get the point about how sea level at one point varies. You seem to think it only varies in consistent ways with a recurrence time much less than 47 years and blithely ignore the observed fact that it doesn't. Considering how long you argued that your king tide observations cast doubt on satellite observations of global average SLR, it's not surprising how slow a learner you are in this case.

any SLR caused by AGW will give you plenty of warning

Oh whoopee doo. That takes care of all the problems like salt encroachment in the vast area of agricultural land near sea level and the accelerated rate of coastal erosion when sea level rises to levels not previously attacked by wave action. Stupid old drongo has a new lesson for us, a problem is not a problem if it gives us plenty of warning.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

Dr Who, your fundamental problem is twofold:

1) emissions != absorptions (a.k.a. emissions offsets), and you seem to be conflating the two

2) anthropogenic changes to net emissions (which includes anthropogenic changes to absorptions when netted out) are the key factor in anthropogenic climate change.

Giving more emissions permits to those who already have more land does nothing to reduce the net anthropogenic emissions, which is the key goal here. It doesn't offer a better way to reduce anthropogenic emissions, nor does it encourage more anthropogenic absorption. It merely makes the rich richer and the poor poorer whilst not helping the climate compared to per capita schemes.

What's more, your apparent goals are already in line with a per capita scheme. If we speculate that land and sea area can be utilised more effectively (i.e. to increase anthropogenic absorption, perhaps over time with the aid of new technology), then those who are land-rich in a world where there's demand for emissions offsets will see their land rise in value - precisely because there's a cap on emissions that drives demand for offsets. (Furthermore, you might want to consider that per capita limits increases the number of potential consumers for offsets, which likely raises the price.)

So the negotiators and politicians probably aren't anywhere near as stupid as you make them out to be.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 22 Feb 2010 #permalink

"So your points in your bath vary in average level by more than 100 mm like points in the ocean,"

DO'N,

With only around 100 mm SL variation spread across the worlds oceans with all the different forces that they experience every minute of the day is a very good example of them "vigorously seeking equilibrium". I find it amazing that you can't comprehend that.

"a problem is not a problem if it gives us plenty of warning."

Y'know, I thought we have had that salt problem for.. er..let me see, ever since Australia had an inland sea. But don't let that stop you from inventing a few more.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 23 Feb 2010 #permalink

Re: Drongo and Archimedes.

You need to take your bath and water into a no/low gravity situation so that the main masses exerting a gravitation field are just the water and bath, you might then be closer to being realistic, although the baths mass would be far to low.

The problem your poor modelling situation has, is that the amount of water is far to small, in comparison to the earths mass.
Maybe if you made 1 second, say equal 10 years, then your bath model would be more realistic on an 'earth' scale. eg. the movement would be in slow motion.
50 years or longer is roughly how long a huge mass of water would take to redistribute itself around the planet, if kicked out of place by a giant foot.

Paul UK,

Interesting thought. There have been some really big tsunamis that must have stirred the pot such as the one in Japan reportedly 250 feet high but more often there are constant storm forces that cause surges and currents all the time but in spite of these multiple random forces the ocean is relatively level. Probably less than the thickness of a human hair over the surface of a bath tub.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 23 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo:
You are talking about wave propagation, that isn't the same as physical movement of masses of water, to achieve a level.

Wave propagation doesn't actually result in much water being moved. It is more to do with the transmission of energy.

However for the water from glaciers to distribute evenly over the planet, it would take many, many years. Also such a movement is less energy intensive, unlike a wave which starts from a single point of energy.

At various points around the earth you have 'bottle necks' where the flow of water is slowed down (water is subject to Newtonian physics, skin friction, fluid friction etc.).
eg. if the Atlantic was a higher level than the Pacific, it would take many years to achieve some sort of level.

Gravity of large masses will also have an impact regional sea levels.

[Drongo](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

You are so flagrantly oblivious to the most basic, most fundamental, points being put to you that I am starting to wonder if you have an intellectual impairment.

But in spite of that Bernie, old chap, at my place it was 20 cms below 1963 readings. Sad I know , but true.

That's the main "evidence supported, coherent point" I have been trying to make for a couple of weeks...

If, at your "place it was 20 cms below 1963 readings", so bloody what?! You are comparing two essentially random events.

I have repeatedly told you that the predicted astronomical tide height is confounded by a wide variety of stochastic meteorological and hydrodynamic parameters. Amongst these, but certainly not restricted to such, is barometric pressure.

Fact:

Tides are calculated with the assumption of a barometric pressure of 1013 millibar.

Fact:

A decrease in pressure of one millibar will increase sea level by approximately one centimetre.

Fact:

Most stormy conditions occur with atmospheric pressures well below 1000 mbar, and indeed often well below 990mbar.

Fact:

From my very own weather station, which plots over a dozen meteorological parameters every 20 minutes, I can tell you that barometric pressure can drop 30 millibars or more in a matter of hours, and further, that seemingly similar storm conditions can be characterised by a difference of a score or more millibar.

Fact:

Even given that you were able to accurately read sea level against a seawall in surging storm conditions to the nearest centimetre (you present no evidence that you did), it only requires that the 1963 tide of which you speak occurred during barometric conditions 20mbar or so less than occurred in January this year, for the sea level to be 20cm higher on that occasion in 1963 than in 2010.

20mbar is small change for an extreme weather event, and if 1963 was characterised by an especially deep low pressure system then there is no reason in the world to expect that every subsequent January will oblige with a similar low pressure.

Fact:

Tide gauge measurements at the two official sites flanking your seawall both show clear evidence of sea level rise over recent decades, congruent with the order of magnitude of around 2 mm/yr reported for much of southern Queensland and for indeed for much of the planet.

Fact:

You have no case, because your "evidence" and your reasoning hold less water than a cotton prawn net that has hung mouldering from an abandoned boatshed wall since 1963.

If you wish to dispute this, please provide your analyses of:

  1. the barometric histories at the seawall for 1963 versus 2010
  2. the hydrodynamic characteristics at the seawall for 1963 versus 2010
  3. the El Niño conditions at the seawall for 1963 versus 2010
  4. the regional oceanic swell and surge conditions impinging the seawall for 1963 versus 2010
  5. the eustatic and tectonic trends for the continental plate under the seawall for 1963 versus 2010
  6. all sundry other possible confounders that you are able to account for, and that would demonstrate the thoroughness of your analysis.

Fact:

You are speaking from your arse, and you are stubbornly holding on to your wrong-headed thinking as would an ass.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 23 Feb 2010 #permalink

Paul UK,

Tsunamis are exactly "kicking water out of place by a giant foot". You made the point. Some have been over 1000 feet high and they didn't take 50 years to settle down.

Compared with the leakage of glacial water, huge monsoonal dumps of literally metres of rainfall plus river flooding in areas like the Bay of Bengal are accompanied by falling SLs.

When are you blokes gonna give up trying to pontificate and realise you just DON'T KNOW.

Bernie,

See above plus why don't you stop telling other people how to suck eggs?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 23 Feb 2010 #permalink

S.o.d.:

With only around 100 mm SL variation spread across the worlds oceans with all the different forces that they experience every minute of the day is a very good example of them "vigorously seeking equilibrium".

I find it amazing that you can't comprehend that more than 100 mm SL variation (probably substantially more when averaged over shorter periods like a single king tide) is more than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years. Tell me, do you really think that more than 100 mm is less than 100 mm?

"a problem is not a problem if it gives us plenty of warning."
Y'know, I thought we have had that salt problem for.. er..let me see, ever since Australia had an inland sea.

Sure, that's not a problem either. If you say so.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 23 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo resorts to schoolyard nya-nyas:

See above plus why don't you stop telling other people how to suck eggs?

Drongo, if I'm telling you how to suck eggs, that implies that you understand all of the points that I and others have repeatedly put to you. And yet you do not address any of them.

If you are so comprehensively accounting for all factors in your claim that this year's sea level is 20 cm lower than it was in 1963, all you have to do is address my points at [#158](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…), and to [answer my questions left lingering on the other thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…). Oh, and you need to explain how the [professionally-collected tidal data for your part of the world](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…) and indeed [more generally around Australia](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…) are so utterly wrong and how your two "observations' manage to trump them all.

It's completely bizarre that this nonsense of yours has continued for weeks now, with not one paragraph of science from you - just endless repetition about how your "observation" of a king tide along a seawall in 1963 was 20cm higher than one in 2010.

If I said that my grandfather grew a cucumber in 1963 that was 50 cm long, but that his cumcumbers this year were no longer than 40 cm, would you conclude that all cucumbers in the world were now now longer than 40 cm, and indeed that my grandfather could no longer grow 50 cm cucumbers? Think about it, because that's basically what you're saying in the context of tides and of sea level.

As you only seem to be able to function at a prepubescent level of discourse, I will rephrase my ongoing challenge to you to present the scientific case that supports your claim...

Go on - I double dare ya; nah, I quadruple-times-infinity dare ya.

And because the question seems to be escaping your attention even though I've repeated it several times, have you arrived at a [defensible argument for your attempt to fit a linear regression trend to an oscillating phenomenon](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…)?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 23 Feb 2010 #permalink

"a problem is not a problem if it gives us plenty of warning." Y'know, I thought we have had that salt problem for.. er..let me see, ever since Australia had an inland sea.

The other day and I noticed the pressure in my tyres was a touch low, and putting my ear to the valve I could hear a very slow leak.

No problem, I said to myself. I have plenty of warning. It will take weeks to get to be a serious problem, and I'm really busy today.

On the way to work I couldn't avoid driving over some building debris. I would have been worried about the broken glass and nails deflating my tyres, but fortunately I remembered "No worries about deflation, as I have plenty of warning".

I haven't quite figured out what that screeching noise is yet though, and the bumping is getting annoying and my steering seems a touch difficult. But I'm sure it's nothing too serious.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 23 Feb 2010 #permalink

C.O.N.D.O.M.

"I find it amazing that you can't comprehend that more than 100 mm SL variation (probably substantially more when averaged over shorter periods like a single king tide) is more than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years."

And high and low tides occur at the same time too. Well, well, hey, who'd 'a' thought.

I find it amazing you can't comprehend that if sea levels, at a given point, over a period of 47 years, not only fail to rise but actually fall by 20 cms that neither I nor the sea is going to wet the bed any time soon. [even though you choose to]

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 23 Feb 2010 #permalink

Lotharsson,

If you'd put your spit on that valve instead dribbling here ......

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 23 Feb 2010 #permalink

drongo;

I find it amazing you can't comprehend that if sea levels, at a given point, over a period of 47 years, not only fail to rise but actually fall by 20 cms that neither I nor the sea is going to wet the bed any time soon

I find it amazing that after all this time the drongo still doesn't understand even the most basic features of tidal dynamics, hence his utterly ludicrous statement above.

"I find it amazing that after all this time the drongo still doesn't understand even the most basic features of tidal dynamics,"

Michael, @ 37

"Any local factors that might affect a median or low tide will have precisely the same effect on a spring tide."

Can't say that about you, hey Michael.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 23 Feb 2010 #permalink

Numerous people have tried to get some basic facts to penetrate your thick skull with no effect.

We'll try again, your comparison to a single spring tide of 47 years ago is meaningless unless you can account for all the factors; wind, barometric pressure,etc.

Without doing this your comment that sea level has fallen 20cms in beyond stupid.

"is" not "in"

Michael,

You're not only stupid, you don't heed.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 23 Feb 2010 #permalink

What, so you still don't understand the effect of barometirc pressure on tidal merasurement?

It would be OK if you just don't get this, but you seem to refuse to get it.

Militant idiocy on parade.

[Drongo say](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…)s:

I find it amazing you can't comprehend that if sea levels, at a given point, over a period of 47 years, not only fail to rise but actually fall by 20 cms that neither I nor the sea is going to wet the bed any time soon.

See, this is the thing drongo...

You've compared two king tide heights, under completely different meteorological, hydrodynamic, and other assorted conditions dictated by confounding variables, and without a standardised protocol for measuring in the first place - and with no evidence that you've actually done what you said that you did - and then you confabulate your "observations" with true sea level measurement.

Do you truly not understand that you are comparing apples with elephants?

You may as well say that because yesterday was cooler than today, there is no approaching austral winter.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 23 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo said:
>Tsunamis are exactly "kicking water out of place by a giant foot". You made the point. Some have been over 1000 feet high and they didn't take 50 years to settle down.

I said:
>50 years or longer is roughly how long a huge mass of water would take to redistribute itself around the planet, if kicked out of place by a giant foot.

On a global scale a Tsunami is not a huge mass of water being moved. It is a localised high energy event that propagates a wave. A wave doesn't transfer a large mass of water. Your Bath tub example was not an adequate model for what you were discussing, because Tsunami's have zilch to do with sea levels and your 'model' represented a far greater force confined to a small space. A more realistic model would be to drop a tiny pebble in the bath and watch the tiny waves propagate from the point it was dropped in.

Animation of an event generating a Tsunami:
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/645fall2003_web.dir/elena_suleimani/generat…

>When are you blokes gonna give up trying to pontificate and realise you just DON'T KNOW.

When are you going to grow up and have an intelligent discussion without being rude.

I suggest you also read up to find out why a wave might end up being 'high' when it reaches a shore line. It's quite basic school boy stuff.

@Drongo

> And high and low tides occur at the same time too. Well, well, hey, who'd 'a' thought.

Can you elaborate on this aside - I'm not sure I caught your meaning?

Janet,

I love it when you do that. But seriously you lot, what is it about comparing one sea site 90-odd times with king tides over 47 years that you dont understand? And as I have already said there were times when SLs were higher due to abnormal situations but this last HAT was lower by 20cms.

You're at liberty to say "I don't believe you" and I can understand that but don't try to tell me something else happened that didn't happen in my own back yard. And the other point I am trying to make is that while I am happy to admit that this site is not the ultimate indicator of SLs, [no single site ever could be] it is reporting a regular, periodic story and its message is worth noting.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 23 Feb 2010 #permalink

Do you understand the influence of barometric pressure (amongst other things) or not?

No seriously Drongo,

Remind us how many data points you used to overturn the worlds research organisation measures of Sea Level Rise?

It really is central to what you are claiming.

And are you really concealing data in your private life's diaries or did you just want to make an allusion to possible data that doesn't really exist?

S. O. D.:

I find it amazing that you can't comprehend that more than 100 mm SL variation (probably substantially more when averaged over shorter periods like a single king tide) is more than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years. Tell me, do you really think that more than 100 mm is less than 100 mm?

And high and low tides occur at the same time too. Well, well, hey, who'd 'a' thought.

OK, for someone as brain-dead as yourself, you can leave out the part in brackets because it obviously exceeds your attention span:

I find it amazing that you can't comprehend that more than 100 mm SL variation is more than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years. Tell me, do you really think that more than 100 mm is less than 100 mm? And this time, try to answer the question.

I find it amazing you can't comprehend that if sea levels, at a given point, over a period of 47 years, not only fail to rise but actually fall by 20 cms that neither I nor the sea is going to wet the bed any time soon.

Record King tides in the past don't stop records in the future and neither do they mean they're going to happen again in less than 47 years, even assuming the record is accurate which is very questionable in this case. Individual King tide height is affected by Barometric setup and Wind setup even when Wave setup and Wave runup are avoided. Together, Barometric setup and Wind setup can add 0.6 m to a King tide record and there's nothing to say that that much boost to the tide level will happen again within a small number of years. As well as atmospheric influences, there are more than 100 astronomical constituents that affect the timing and height of tides. The King tides have a period of six months but the combination of the other constituents produces a pseudo-random sequence with a practically infinite period. Thus the heights of King tides vary effectively randomly which means there is no limit to how long it can be between records. For the benefit of S.O.D., that means more than 47 years.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 23 Feb 2010 #permalink

Drongo.

Seriously dude, your thinking on sea level is completely FUBARed.

It seems that you are ignoring my comment at #164 about ignoring my comments and questions, so [I will draw it to your attention again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

And although Chris O'Neill has pipped me to the post on the matter of the magnitudes of particular confounders of tide height, I will nevertheless add [another link for your consideration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#Overview_of_sea-lev…), and in forlorn hope, your illumination.

And a new challenge for you ([beyond the request that you answer my previous questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…) and that you [show why your argument on fitting a linear regression trend to an oscillating phenomenon is defensible](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…)) - can you provide your original claim in a journal abstract form, explaining how you have measured sea level and how it refutes the conventionally accepted science?

I also have a challenge for drongo's mates from the Old Swamp, as I know that both cohentite and Tim Curtin, amongst others, are reading these threads. If you believe that drongo has any case, come out and support him. Help him to coherently state his case, and demonstrate why you lot have a hotline to the truth where the planets best oceanographers are missing the plot.

Come on boys, be brave! Curtin, perhaps you might like to expand upon your lunar year notion...

And perhaps the both of you, and whoever else is lurking in the shadows, might explain how it is that now the world's oceanographers, on top of the world's climatologists, physicists, and biologists, are conspiring to perpetrate their own "oh, my mythical deity, it's increasing!" fraud.

Are there any disciplines of science that you lot do believe are not universally peopled by conspirators??

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 Feb 2010 #permalink

What is it about self appointed experts who don't credit people with any brains who have spent much of their lives on and by the sea, that they feel the need to pontificate and instruct?

Is it the old "they that can, do and they that can't, instruct," problem? [I know all about sucking eggs but I'm sure you don't]

Those three meteorological processes that affect coastal water levels, storm, meteorological ocillation and climate change have all been discussed here before and wave setup and wave runup don't apply in an estuarine "stilling pond" where it's so flat you can mark the stationary high water level with a pen against the concrete.

Storms almost always increase SLs, MOs likewise because we are talking about king tides and the only variable is barometric pressure and having both a torricelli and aneroid and used them daily most of my life [torricelli on land, aneroid at sea] I am aware of that influence.

That leaves the climate change card so if SLs are not going up what's it saying?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Feb 2010 #permalink

Remember me Drongo?

I'm still waiting:

Remind us how many data points you used to overturn the worlds research organisation measures of Sea Level Rise?

It really is central to what you are claiming.

And are you really concealing data in your private life's diaries or did you just want to make an allusion to possible data that doesn't really exist?

So if drongo knows all the variables, why doesn't he just tell us what the pressure, etc was for the tides in question?

There's been a lot of yammering from the drongo and precious little information.

Michael,

Just for the sake of some dolt who keeps "yammering" but doesn't read or absorb information, I'll repeat what I have previosly said, that barometric pressure on that day was below normal, there was cyclone activity in the Coral Sea and a substantial on-shore gradient all of which if normalised would probably have reduced the SL by another 5 cms.

janet,

Remind me first how thick you are and how many times you will need to be reminded in the future.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Feb 2010 #permalink

"below normal"!

What on earth is "below normal" MLSP you drongo?

But please, keep ignoring the detailed historical tide information that Bernard has supplied you with.

Drongo,

I must be quite thick, becasue I can't find where you provide an adequate answer my question:

>Remind us how many data points you used to overturn the worlds research organisation measures of Sea Level Rise?

It really is central to what you are claiming.

>And are you really concealing data in your private life's diaries or did you just want to make an allusion to possible data that doesn't really exist?

Michael,

You arrogant ignoramus! [as your friend C.O.N.D.O.M. would say] Normal is 1013 millibars. 29.9 inches or 759 mms of mercury.

Here's one for the "Doltoids war on sceptics".

This must be where you get your SLR science from at the expense of your kids' sanity:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/09/tv_climate_ad_drowning_dog/

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Feb 2010 #permalink

barometric pressure on that day was below normal

Day (not days): um, didn't you have two data points?

By just curious (not verified) on 24 Feb 2010 #permalink

spangled drongo, ask el gordo how to fix your linking problem. Alternatively, read the blog instructions.

By Anonymous (not verified) on 24 Feb 2010 #permalink

drongo you drongo.

You're meant to be providing us with a comparison.

"below normal" tells us absolutely nothing, as many commenters have already noted.

And if you want to fix your links, enclose them in these; "<", ">".

"Below normal" tells you [well, any normal person] that, particularly included with onshore gradient, normalised, SLs would be even lower.

As I have said previously I haven't compared this recent data to old king tide data when there were often cyclones and rain depressions closely associated with them because those data were abnormally high [up to 1.5 m higher]. Only with data that occurred during fine summer and winter weather when the barometer was near normal [mild high] and no storms. It is also quite usual that with a large high over SE Australia causing theoretically lower SLs there can be strong on-shore winds causing higher coastal SLs as evidenced by a southerly set of up to four knots [SLs vigorously seeking equilibrium]. Before the days of GPS the only way to detect these ocean currents was by thermometer.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Feb 2010 #permalink

What is it about self appointed experts who don't credit scientists with any brains who have spent much of their working lives on and by the sea, that they feel the need to pontificate and instruct?

S.O.D., You still haven't answered my question:

Do you really think that more than 100 mm SL variation is less than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years.

Storms almost always increase SLs, MOs likewise because we are talking about king tides and the only variable is barometric pressure

No, you've forgotten wind. And lots of other variables as well.

barometric pressure on that day was below normal, there was cyclone activity in the Coral Sea and a substantial on-shore gradient all of which if normalised would probably have reduced the SL by another 5 cms

Reduced? How do below normal pressure and wind set-up reduce SL? And we just have to believe your figure do we? Thanks but no thanks.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 24 Feb 2010 #permalink

Michael, I'll try that

""

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Feb 2010 #permalink

"Reduced? How do below normal pressure and wind set-up reduce SL?"

C.O.N.D.O.M.

I'm trying to still the waters but you insist on making heavy weather of it.

No, they make it higher but when you "normalise" those factors, ie bring them back to normal pressure, no onshore wind etc [get it?] then that already low reading would be even lower.

And BTW, storms do include wind.

Michael, looka that! It works!

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Feb 2010 #permalink

Nah, it doesn't. I knew it was biased.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Feb 2010 #permalink

Once more,

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Feb 2010 #permalink

S.O.D., You still haven't answered my question:

Do you really think that more than 100 mm SL variation is less than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years">?

Storms almost always increase SLs, MOs likewise because we are talking about king tides and the only variable is barometric pressure

No, you've forgotten wind.

And BTW, storms do include wind.

Perhaps you should learn what the word "only" means.

And lots of other variables as well.

You still haven't explained why you ignore all the other variables.

all of which if normalised would probably have reduced the SL by another 5 cms

You still haven't explained why we should believe you, especially since you ignore all the other variables.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 24 Feb 2010 #permalink

On balance do people agree Spangled D ?

You might be wrong. I don't think anyone is out to trick you.

"You still haven't explained why we should believe you"

C.O.N.D.O.M.

Reread 180. And while you're at it check out the Roman fish ponds, invasion site etc and think upon SLs for the last 2,000 years and despair.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Feb 2010 #permalink

Andrew,

Do you mean consensually speaking?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Feb 2010 #permalink

This thread may have to be renamed - drongo's war on reason.

Wasn't this about powerful media peddling folklore to the general public? I'd rather you confined the remainder of the climate change war to the towers of academe, please- ordinary humans are just bl**dy sick of it all!- Particularly since we're all told we can't do anything about it and Mr Rudd doesn't want to do it on our behalf!

Murfomurf,

Things are never that bad that you'd want to pay a dumb tax to Rudd to build more of those ivory "towers of academe". Particularly not the way they have been heading.

Check this out and you'll be on a much better train and note those recent warmER periods:

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Feb 2010 #permalink

I know drongo, it's amazing how we can just ignore 65 million years of human history like that.

it's amazing how we can just ignore 65 million years of human history like that.

Especially when ya can't wring a hockey stick out of any part of it.

Particularly those last beautiful 3,500!

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Feb 2010 #permalink

OK, if civilisation could exist in thouse conditions 65 mya, what are we worrying about!

Is Jo Nova's new best friend David Lappi one in the same as this David Lappi?

http://home.gci.net/~lapres/

LAPP Resources is promoting Alaska as a favorable exploration and production destination for independent petroleum companies. LRI is one of the three founding members of the "Royalty Owners and Independents for Alaska, Inc. "(ROI for Alaska), a group formed by local independents to support independent development of Alaska's hydrocarbon resources.

Just asking?

S.O.D.:

Reread 180.

what is it about comparing one sea site 90-odd times with king tides over 47 years that you dont understand?

What is it about variations in tide heights that you don't understand?

And as I have already said there were times when SLs were higher due to abnormal situations but this last HAT was lower by 20cms.

And why, pray tell, were those abnormal situations not capable of exceeding the rise in average sea level since then?

the other point I am trying to make is that while I am happy to admit that this site is not the ultimate indicator of SLs, [no single site ever could be] it is reporting a regular, periodic story

You can't even get that right. Sea level is NOT periodic. It has a periodic component but also an aperiodic component. The aperiodicity is caused by the very large number of influences on sea level.

And you still haven't answered my question:

Do you really think that more than 100 mm SL variation is less than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 25 Feb 2010 #permalink

I have installed Greasemonkey and the killfile script. And now all I see of the drongo is:

Comment by spangled drongo blocked. [unkill]â[show comment]

Sweet, sweet relief. I heartily recommend it to anyone with a brain

Welcome to the club zoot.

You just have to resist the temptation to take a peek with [show comment] -- can be hard to do at times.

And it's best you avert your eyes from the screen before it is rewritten too, as if a bod is in your [kill] file and they are in the last 2 or 3 to post in a thread, then the delay is often just sufficient to catch a peek at the latest rubbish they are espousing before the [kill] takes effect.

I will be away for the next four days, ironically to take a break with my extended family in a shack 2 metres above the high tide line, and in an area where there is no wireless broadband coverage, so I will have to leave it to Chris O'Neill, Michael, jackerman and others to keep drongo from wriggling away from his baseless claim.

A couple of reiterations for said numpty though... first up dude, why will you not address my question about how your promotion of [the fit of a linear regression trend to an oscillating phenomenon](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…) is defensible?

And why will you not show - using basic science - how all of [the facts underscoring the questions that I have repeatedly put to you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…) are inferior to your several observations of waves along a seawall in an unspecified meteorological milieu, taken at unspecified times with respect to the astronomical high tide, and with unspecified conditions of current, wind, hydrodynamic progression and sundry other parameters?

Similarly, why do you not believe [the raw data that contradicts your unstandardised "observations"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…)?

You flap your hands around a lot and come up with unsupported "[if this, and this, and this...](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…)" scenarios to cover your lack of hard data, but you do not actually refer to any data, nor to any analysis thereof.

You admit that you don't know what the meteorological, hydrodynamic, oceanographic or other sundry parameters were back in 1963. [Chris O'Neill specifically asks you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…) why the many possible combinations of such parameters were not capable of producing a higher tide in 1963 compared with January this year - how do you respond, and how can you possibly respond with any degree of scientific confidence at all if you do not have meticulously recorded and detailed data on all of the relevant parameters?!

In your little '[lesson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…)' about "normalisation", a lesson that the rest of us have been trying to drive into your granite skull for weeks, how do you know that the "normalisation" of the 1963 level that you "observed" gives a result that is higher than for an adjusted result this January?

Oo, and note: the quality of your capacity for "observation" is not assured - how do we know that you weren't standing next to an 'air conditioner' or something similar...

And another note, barometric pressure is not the only variable that affects water level in a "[stilling pond](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…)". Upstream and seaward hydrodynamics both have an effect (as do the other parameters that both I and Chris O'Neill have repeated [directed you to](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#Overview_of_sea-lev…)), and as you are so loud to proclaim, water "vigorously finds [sic] its own level". Changes in hydrodynamics are thus rapidly transmitted to places such as your "stilling pond", and are therefore mandatory input for adjusting - or "normalising", as you like to say - ambient sea level in a dynamic environment.

Oo, oo - and another note: [your claim that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…):

Before the days of GPS the only way to detect these ocean currents was by thermometer.

is [so wrong that it's not even wrong](http://hydro-international.com/issues/articles/id603-Ocean_Current_Meas…). And I should know - I myself have used rotor-based current meters, and there was no mercury involved...

I could go on, as I have repeatedly done already, but it's becoming patently apparent that you are possessed of your own little Bermuda Triangle between your ears, where scientific facts sail never to be seen again - tides, gyres, vortices and sundry other fluid phenomena all unnecessary for their disappearance, as your Triangle is obviously a manifestation of a particularly massive Dunning-Kruger black hole.

You disagree? Then use some scientific process - it's really not that hard. And if you can't manage that by yourself, invite your mates to help you, although as I have already observed they've been uncharacterisitically quiet about your challenge to scientific integrity.

I wonder why?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 Feb 2010 #permalink

Bernard,

Have a good holiday and don't forget to keep a weather eye cocked on that SL. Go easy on the egg-sucking lessons but before you leave Chris in charge give him some of your instructions on which way is up and which way is down.

WRT ocean currents: so you dropped anchor in 15,000 feet of water in the middle of an ocean race so you could use a rotor based current meter to check the set? Very slow.

Bernard, try and stay aware or you tend to believe anything. Even the aware guys can come to grief if they rely too much on scientific instruments and don't keep a good look out.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Feb 2010 #permalink

Chris-Which-Way-Is-Up-O'Neill,

A king tide is not periodic?

Something that happens regularly mid-summer and mid-winter, twice a year, every year is not periodic??

Is that also filed under "which way is up".

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Feb 2010 #permalink

I'm still sniggering at Bernard J's characterisation of spangled dickhead's skull. Bermuda Triangle indeed.

I'm leaving now, but drongo...

Short's and Gordon's navigation shortcomings do not distract from the fact that you are oblivious to the many other methods for measuring ocean currents that do not involve thermometers. You are simply trying to lay another red herring in order to divert attention from your mounting catalogue of mistakes - 'though I doubt that any reading this thread need to have this pointed out.

It's interesting though to see how many times [you avoid answering the difficult (for you) questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

A few little words of illumination for you - you might believe that you are somehow scoring points on this matter of your absurd claim, but you are fooling no-one except yourself: not even your Bog-mates are coming out to defend you, and we know that they're reading this thread.

As I always do, I will note that to prove me wrong you need only address my questions, and in doing so to find the data and to conduct the analyses that refute the real data and my, and other people's, points of fact.

Your persistent flapping of hands about your "observations" does not constitute a reasoned scienctific argument, no matter how much you imagine that it does...

Oh, and king tides are not 'periodic' in the manner in which you seem to believe that they are; and their realised amplitudes certainly are not, for all the reasons that you persist in ignoring - except when you believe that their mention might salvage your own hide.

And speaking of 'periodicity', how's the [homework](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…) coming along? Out of perverse curiosity, do you know how many times I've asked you about this without any decent response from you?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 Feb 2010 #permalink

Bye Bye Bernie, Mind the step.

I should have said for one as obtuse as you [but sometimes I give you the BotD] that because it is virtually impossible for the average joe to anchor his boat in the deep ocean, that currents were measured by thermometer prior to GPS but you Doltoids so enjoy making a meal out of every bit of esoteric crap that comes your way, I should have been more circumspect.

And you really believe that tides are not periodic? King or daily? High or low? What could be more fundamentally periodic than tides? Sounds like even more of the same EC.

Anyway this is C.O.N.D.O.M.'s baby. He's suppose to be doing your job not v/v. You can knock-off now. SEAULATER.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Feb 2010 #permalink

"I should have said for one as obtuse as you [but sometimes I give you the BotD] that because it is virtually impossible for the average joe to anchor his boat in the deep ocean, that currents were measured by thermometer prior to GPS but you Doltoids so enjoy making a meal out of every bit of esoteric crap that comes your way, I should have been more circumspect."

Curse those piddling facts.

"Curse those piddling facts."

John, I assume you mean the fact that as virtually no one can anchor in mid ocean those current measuring devices of Bernie's were worthless and his point invalid. Just another case of putting your faith in "scientific" instruments that don't deliver.

Any idea of the total error budget in satellite SL measurements?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Feb 2010 #permalink

Spangled Drongo (#226) said:

"...that because it is virtually impossible for the average joe to anchor his boat in the deep ocean, that currents were measured by thermometer prior to GPS..."

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Oceanographers have been measuring ocean currents for decades using current meters anchored to the bottom of the ocean - often in the deeper parts of the ocean. This is a well-established technology which pre-dates, and has nothing to do with, GPS.

Quoting you again: "...but you ... so enjoy making a meal out of every bit of esoteric crap that comes your way...".

Nice self portrait. I couldn't have put it better myself. Where do you get the rubbish you spout here?

Neil White

By Neil White (not verified) on 25 Feb 2010 #permalink

"Nice self portrait. I couldn't have put it better myself. (Strangled Drongo)Where do you get the rubbish you spout here?" - Neil White

A region of his body normally covered by underpants, except when he has them on his head.

By Dappledwater (not verified) on 25 Feb 2010 #permalink

Neil White and Dappledwater,

As average boat owners you anchor regularly in mid ocean? You may have noticed I said "virtually" no one can but if you think that average people can anchor in depths in excess of 10,000 metres you're crazier than Bernie.

To successfully anchor you need 3-1 scope and 30 kilometers of massive stud-link chain would require a separate ship just to carry it.

I know it's theoretically possible but logistically not probable so have you any evidence that anyone has successfully anchored in the deep oceans?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Feb 2010 #permalink

Spangled Drongo, who said they anchored their "average boat" in deep ocean?

Oh, wait - it was only you, jumping to conclusions.

(And for bonus laughs, you started talking about 15000 feet deep and then upped the ante to 10000m. ;-)

This thread has been quite illuminating.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 Feb 2010 #permalink

By my reckoning 15,000ft converts to 4,572m. So using SD's (pre-goalpost shift) figure I would suggest that this abstract alone provides useful insight:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982dcls.conf..159G

Current meters moored at 1200 m from a seabed 4600 m deep in the Indian Ocean were recovered using the ARGOS system after failure of the explosive anchor-release bolts prevented recovery using acoustic methods.

Admittedly, I don't think anyone had access to this sort of technology in Victorian times.

Lotharrson,

Pay attention and read Neil White's post. You also don't know much about ocean depths. White's post stated "deeper parts of the ocean" and while it is 15,000 feet locally, it is 35,000 feet to the north. You need all the illumination you can get.

And Hasis,

Those instruments anchored 3,400 metres underwater would be very handy for updating necessary info onboard.[not]

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Feb 2010 #permalink

Pay attention and read Neil White's post. You also don't know much about ocean depths. White's post stated "deeper parts of the ocean" and while it is 15,000 feet locally, it is 35,000 feet to the north. You need all the illumination you can get.

You're jumping to conclusions again. I know how deep it gets. I was pointing out you couldn't seem to make your mind up about it.

I also note you appeared to bring the "anchoring your boat" meme into the discussion on the presumption that was what others were suggesting, without any obvious evidence to support that presumption. Maybe you need to pay better attention to others' posts?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Feb 2010 #permalink

"I also note you appeared to bring the "anchoring your boat" meme into the discussion on the presumption that was what others were suggesting, without any obvious evidence to support that presumption."

Lotharsson,

Don't you understand that Bernard's and other's current measuring devices other than GPS only work if they are held stationary and that requires anchoring? Possibly the others didn't understand this as well but that is the only way they can work.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Feb 2010 #permalink

Lotharsson, don't bother trying to hold drongo down on a specific point - he's a gish galloper from way back.

The whole issue of 'anchoring' was raised by drongo as a distraction from his stupid claim that the only way to measure some ocean currents before GPS was via thermometers.

Formula: drongo says something dopey, then tries to turn a quibble into a mountain to take the focus off his idiocy.

Don't you understand that Bernard's and other's current measuring devices other than GPS only work if they are held stationary and that requires anchoring?

I understand that *you* think that, but as I'm naturally skeptical ;-) (That, and I can imagine there are plausible ways to do it without GPS and without anchoring).

And I note you still don't understand the distinction between anchoring an entire boat (which you implied was necessary - see my skepticism above) and anchoring a smallish monitoring device. But never mind, it's not that important.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Feb 2010 #permalink

Stupid old drongo:

A king tide is not periodic?

Something that happens regularly mid-summer and mid-winter, twice a year, every year is not periodic??

I even cited the reference and he still didn't want to learn. No, ya drongo, a periodic function is not just something that happens regularly mid-summer and mid-winter, twice a year, every year. A function f is periodic if f(t+P)=f(t) for all values of t with a non-zero constant P called the period. Sea level does not satisfy this criterion. For example, sea level does not repeat at yearly intervals simply because the one-year average sea level is rarely the same in successive years.

And you still haven't answered my question:

Do you really think that more than 100 mm SL variation is less than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years? Just answer the question w.r.t. magnitudes in case you're trying to make some pedantic misinterpretation.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 26 Feb 2010 #permalink

Lotharsson,

To get you on wave length, [pardon the pun] we were discussing SLR and the southerly set that runs southward at up to 4 knots off our east coast is due to SL out of equilibrium [by anything up to 60cms] from winds working in an anticlockwise direction around Australia and these SLs vigorously seek equilibrium by reversing their direction against the prevailing wind. This southerly set is happening most of the time and when travelling off shore under sail it can double your speed if you play it to your advantage. To do this you need the wherewithall on board your boat to know when you are in this set and how fast it is going. Prior to the era of the GPS the only way to do this [in spite of Bernard's opinion otherwise] was to monitor the temp of the water and the higher the change [the set was always warmer if it was coming from the north] the faster it was running. Naturally it could also be measured by anchoring and measuring the set in a dozen different ways but that was impractical to the point of impossible depending on ocean depth and how much of a hurry you were in. Also you had to have constant updates on this current. To answer your point about anchoring an entire boat, you can now understand that it is necessary to be in constant touch with your source of information and this source needs to be moving with you.

Chrissy-Which-way,

I said "periodic" but you altered it to your own agenda of "periodic function". You go and play with your PF to your heart's content but just remember you're as confused as ever.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Feb 2010 #permalink

More gish gallop from drongo.

Drongo, if you've elected to join the circus, you can't blame others for concluding you're a clown.

Michael,

For an ignoramus, 99% of relevant detail is always gish gallop.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Feb 2010 #permalink

S.O.D.:

I said "periodic" but you altered it to your own agenda of "periodic function".

I thought we we talking about sea level, you know, a variable that is not a periodic function. Heaven knows what you're talking about because it's certainly not sea level.

You go and play with your PF to your heart's content but just remember you're as confused as ever.

Sure. If you say so. No-one thinks you're confused.

And you still haven't answered my question:

Do you really think that more than 100 mm SL variation is less than the rise in average sea level in the past 47 years? Just answer the question w.r.t. magnitudes in case you're trying to make some pedantic misinterpretation.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 26 Feb 2010 #permalink

Shorter drongo;
I was talking a load of rubbish earlier about measuring currents, I'd better change the subject.

"I thought we we talking about sea level,"

Chrissy-Which-Way Red Herring Man,

I'll do it again just for you.

"180
Janet,

I love it when you do that. But seriously you lot, what is it about comparing one sea site 90-odd times with king tides over 47 years that you dont understand? And as I have already said there were times when SLs were higher due to abnormal situations but this last HAT was lower by 20cms.

You're at liberty to say "I don't believe you" and I can understand that but don't try to tell me something else happened that didn't happen in my own back yard. And the other point I am trying to make is that while I am happy to admit that this site is not the ultimate indicator of SLs, [no single site ever could be] it is reporting a regular, PERIODIC story and its message is worth noting."

"Periodic" does not apply to SLs, it applies to the "90 odd times with king tides over 47 years"

Re your other stupid, repetitious question, it has been answered twenty different ways if you paid attention.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Feb 2010 #permalink

S.O.D.:

"Periodic" does not apply to SLs, it applies to the "90 odd times with king tides over 47 years"

Silly me, I thought we were talking about sea level, not whether ONE component of it was periodic.

it has been answered twenty different ways if you paid attention.

Yeah, twenty different ways all right. Pity they don't actually answer the question. The point is that the more than 100 mm sea level variation, just in annual average variation alone, is more than the rise in global average sea level in 47 years. So the highest tide level 47 years ago at one place could EASILY be higher than anything more recent and does not in any way contradict the fact that global average sea level has risen about 100 mm in the last 50 years. Sea level variations (apart from tides) over periods shorter than a year are considerably more than annual average variation so those variations could easily add more than another 100 mm to a tide 47 years ago. So when someone comes along and says:

after 47 years nothing is happening in MBY

it means absolutely nothing about whether global average sea level is rising or will continue to rise or that it won't overwhelm any past record in the next 100 years (300 mm will overwhelm any of your records).

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 26 Feb 2010 #permalink

"Silly me, I thought we were talking about sea level,

Ya finally got that right! BTW, who brought up that red herring argument claiming that I said that "periodic" was applicable to SLs?

"So the highest tide level 47 years ago at one place could EASILY be higher than anything more recent"

Yes that's posible but when it's not just 47 years ago but 40 ya, 35 ya, 30 ya etc in normal weather years similar to this last one [in fact there have only been two in '67 and '74 that have exceeded the benchmark and those were caused by easily identified extremes] that makes you conclude that the claimed threat of SLR is highly debateable.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Feb 2010 #permalink

S.O.D.:

Yes that's posible but when it's not just 47 years ago but 40 ya, 35 ya, 30 ya etc in normal weather years similar to this last one [in fact there have only been two in '67 and '74 that have exceeded the benchmark and those were caused by easily identified extremes].

You still don't get it. 47 ya, 35ya, etc. doesn't make any difference. The average sea level rise over those periods is lower than the variation of sea level averaged over a year.

that makes you conclude that the claimed threat of SLR is highly debateable.

I'm not the one trying to conclude anything from your observations. You are. Come back when you understand the difference. Until then, get lost.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 27 Feb 2010 #permalink

Frustratingly for me I had to cut my break short and come home in order to help with last-minute work on the PhD thesis I've been proofing for the last few weeks. More frustratingly, but not surprising, is that I have returned to find that drongo is as non-comprehending about the matter of his king tide nonsense as when I left. It seems that he is determined to prove that the old adage about talking to brick walls applies to the sea wall variant...

Drongo's blathering about currents has well and truly distracted from the initial discussion, which was that the claim that his "observations" at a (land-based) sea wall indicate a drop of sea level of 20 cm from 1963 to 2010.

It is in this context that I drew to his attention that currents are an important factor, and it is in this context that he made his [completely unqualified statement](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…) about only being able to measure currents with thermometers prior to the advent of GPS. In fact, in this post he referred to "on-shore winds causing higher coastal SLs" [emphases mine] â hardly a context that has to do with the deep ocean trenches implicit in his mention of [15 000 feet](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_… )/[10 000 m](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…) depths.

Seriously... what on earth, or below its waves, do depths such as this have to do with a discussion of the hydrodynamics of the vicinity of this much-vaunted sea wall with which drongo is so enamoured?!

Drongo.

The 18.6 year nodal (astronomical) cycle affects sea level. Barometric pressure affects sea level. Regional meteorological events affect sea level. Local hydrodynamics and oceanography (including, but not restricted to, coastal currents) affect sea level. Eustatic and tectonic shifts affect relative sea level.

What about these factors is it that you are so resistant to accepting?

What is it about the simple raw data, for the very region about which you make your claims, that you find so unpalatable? After all, even before the requisite adjustments to account for the impinging parameters, they show sea level increase â and yes, even in a form where the professional advice is to not make inferences from such data about changes in sea level! And if you are suddenly going to claim that we need to heed this admonition, do you then accept the official, adjusted (or to use your own word â "normalised") trends, which also indicate sea level increase?

Huh?

Now, another in a growing line of corrections...

[You said at #226](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…):

And you really believe that tides are not periodic?

which is yet again a nasty example of you putting words into my mouth and thus attempting to erect a strawman. I said, [at #225](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…), that:

king tides are not 'periodic' in the manner in which you seem to believe that they are; and their realised amplitudes certainly are not, for all the reasons that you persist in ignoring - except when you believe that their mention might salvage your own hide.

[My latter emboldened emphasis]

Read what I said, drongo â it means a completely different thing to what you attributed to me.

It's a grubby thing to do, buster, and it serves your cause no good at all to so do.

And here's a precious one indeed:

Any idea of the total error budget in satellite SL measurements?

Drongo... do you have any idea of the total "error budget" in non-standardised, non-corrected, non-documented, irregular, infrequent sea wall SL measurements?

Hmmm?

Yes that's posible but when it's not just 47 years ago but 40 ya, 35 ya, 30 ya etc in normal weather years similar to this last one [in fact there have only been two in '67 and '74 that have exceeded the benchmark and those were caused by easily identified extremes] that makes you conclude that the claimed threat of SLR is highly debateable.

Please explain to the audience how it is that the occurrence of infrequent, extreme events, whose inherent noise is vastly greater than the signal that you dispute, in any way invalidates the existence of said signal? Note: this recalls question 6 of [my post #176 on the Andrew Bolt in one graph thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), which you did not answer.

And speaking of not answering questions, I (and I am sure many others here) are waiting for you to explain why you believe it is valid to [fit a linear regression trend line to an oscillating data set](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…).

I don't have much time to spare now as I need to return to proofing, but I will end with a note that some of the shacks adjacent to the one where I stayed over the weekend were less than 50 cm above last week's high tide mark, and about a metre back from the line. Speaking to the owners of some of these shacks, several of whom are professional fishermen who have spent decades fishing the surrounding waters, reveals some dismissive disdain for your method of determining sea level indeed.

This is hardly the place for me to recount a travelog of my long weekend, but suffice to say that there are folk whose livelihood and infrastructure are intimately attached to the sea, and who laugh at your method for assuring them that all is well with the level of the oceans. Deltoid is hardly a knitting circle of Baptist grandmothers, but some of the words used to describe your "observations" are too colourful even for the hardened folk here.

So, are you ever going to formally state and defend with relevant fact the data, analyses and science with which you are making your claim?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Feb 2010 #permalink

What's the problem drongo? [Cat got your tongue](http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/classify/animalia/uniramia/pterygota/cric…)?

We're still waiting for you to [answer the questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

And I am really, really looking forward to you explaining why you believe it is valid to [fit a linear regression trend line to an oscillating data set](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…).

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 02 Mar 2010 #permalink

"Until then, get lost."

Poor, sad ol' Chrissy-Which-Way,

When you don't know which way is up I think I know who is lost. And that happened quite some time back.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 04 Mar 2010 #permalink

Over [at the 'Institute of Irony' thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/institute_of_irony.php#comment-…) drongo said:

Having lost that core argument you rush about setting me "homework" to restore your ego. I do hope your thesis is a bit more logic based.

Several corrections are required, drongo.

First, I have never at any time "lost that core argument". Indeed, you have never actually addressed in any substantive way, any of the points of my "argument".

You can [follow the trail of links](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…) in order to gather together these points or, if you're constitutionally incapable of doing so, you can make a start by explaining why you not only present no data of your own, but that you also do not refer to the 1963 versus 2010 data for:

  1. ambient barometric pressure
  2. regional meteorological conditions
  3. hydrodynamic/bathymetric milieux
  4. ocean current condition along the coast
  5. isostatic/tectonic activity
  6. sundry other factors affecting sea level that you can read about for yourself.

Seriously, how can you claim to refute the work of thousands of scientists and professional organisations on the basis of several anecdotal "observations" made with no standardised protocol, and in ignorance of several fields of science?

Second, your homework has nothing to do with my ego, and everything to do with the scientific method. Get over yourself.

Third, my thesis is entirely "logic-based": if you disagree, you have but to explain why.

I am somewhat wary of accusing others of mendacity after having [made an embarrassing misreading of Joseph's words on the 'Leakgate/The Oz War on Science' thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/leakegate_the_australians_war.p…), but I have no compunction in suggesting that such might be the motivation for your behaviour here. It's either that, or it's sheer incompetence in, and/or ignorance of, high school level science.

There is a third alternative, and that is that your ideological opposition to the very concept of a rising sea level has ingrained in your mind a breath-taking degree of denial of the type of science that is clear to any impartial observer.

You will no doubt claim that the fourth alternative is that you are correct. If this were actually the case you should be able to vindicate yourself by providing straightforward rebuttals, based on clear evidence and data, to each of my many points.

And yet, after a month, you do not do this - because you cannot do this. You are in truth a lame-arsed, pig-ignorant ideologue who misrepresents scientific fact, and you cannot engage in a proper evidence-based discussion because the moment you do so your little sandcastle of delusion about sea levels will be swept away by a wave of scientific fact.

Oh, and just for the record, I and all of the Deltoid readers are fully cognisant of the glaring fact that you persist in avoiding my question about why [you believe it is valid to fit a linear regression trend line to an oscillating data set](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…).

As I sit hear typing this I am listening to the [Science Show](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/default.htm) on the ABC, which is presently broadcasting a media interview of a number of scientists about the UEA/CRU matter. As I listen it is apparent that there are many in "the public" who think that if they disbelieve the evidence of science, ostrich-like, then it is no longer true. The centuries-long effort to deny evolution, for ideological reasons, is the classic example of this, and anthropogenic global warming is but the most recent incarnation of the desire for many to keep their heads in the sand.

Good luck with that. Hiding from the truth does not change the existence of the truth.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Mar 2010 #permalink

Bernard,

You were wrong about tide periods, you were wrong about measuring currents on board boats and you are wrong about east coast SLs.

Take a little free advice and in future pay a little more attention to what's going on around you instead of what you read and do try to get over yourself.

Bye, bye now.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Mar 2010 #permalink

Oh so aptly named drongo.

How exactly was I "wrong" about "tide periods"? To elaborate on your previous answer, I strongly encourage you to quote me and to link to my comments, and to link to any evidence that you yourself provided in counter.

How exactly was I "wrong" about "measuring current"? To elaborate on your previous answer, I strongly encourage you to quote me and to link to my comments, and to link to any evidence that you yourself provided in counter. Note that this should be interesting, as it was you who claimed that the only way to measure current prior to the advent of GPS was "[by thermometer](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…)". I look forward to your demonstration that the many other techniques that have been employed to map currents off the eastern coast of Australia and the rest of the world, and that don't include the use of thermometers, were all first employed after the advent of GPS...

And as far as the matter of "east coast SLs" goes, how exactly have you explained where I am wrong, and you are correct?

Dude, there's only one person who should be paying attention here, and it ain't me.

Come back you yellow-bellied coward and support with data and with evidence the nonsense that you've been spouting for the last month.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Mar 2010 #permalink

Oi! Drongo.

We're still waiting for your answer to [my question about why you believe it is valid to fit a linear regression trend line to an oscillating data set](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…).

If the question really is too difficult for you (which makes one wonder why you then [presented the graph in the first place](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…)), please feel free to ask cohenite, Louis Hissink, Jan Pompe, or whomever else you feel might be able to support you, to come here and have a go.

As the shape of the curve traced in your link is vaguely wave-like, maybe you could ask one of those surfers who reckon that they can discern a lack of sea level rise over the last 50 years...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Mar 2010 #permalink

"In 2007, Simon Holgate of the U.K.âs Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory produced a history of global sea levels rise from 1904 to 2003"
...
", 1) the rate of sea level rise was, on average, greater in the first half of his record than the second"

LOL! So we average the entire first 50 years and the entire second fifty years, and go "Well, there's your two data points!" What happens, I wonder, if you go just a trifle finer?

By paulmurray (not verified) on 25 Nov 2010 #permalink