Past time for more thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Past time for more thread.
Past time for more thread.
Past time for more thread.
The Antarctic Wilkins Ice Shelf hangs by a thread. Its thinnest point is now reported at 500 metres wide and it could go at any time according to David Vaughan, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey. This will be the tenth shelf lost because of a warmer planet.
Look folks, the 'debate…
I'd be interested to see some of Deltoid readers' favorite books. Anyone care to post?
Bruce Sharp, one of my favourites is C. S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters.
* * *
And, British climate inactivist John O'Sullivan announces the creation of another front group, Principia Scientific International: http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/28963.html
The chairman is -- wait for it -- Tim Ball. http://principia-scientific.org/pso/about-us/why-psi-is-a-cic
My favourite is "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy, closely followed by "The Double" by Jose Saramago.
I've just finished reading "Truth" by Peter Temple and it was a pretty good read. Currently reading "Bring On The Apocalypse" by George Monbiot. It's basically a collection of his columns from The Guardian, however it is interesting and eye opening stuff.
Collected Fictions of Jorge Luis Borges.
Democrats in Virginia finally standing up to Nutcinelli. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2011/01/virginia_demo…
Re Frank@2
I think John OSullivan is American isn't he?
I assumed that, because he wrote something about the BBC that was totally incorrect.
Sorry, click through my name above.
Re: Principia Scientific International
I notice the 'Directors' are 'proposed' and includes:
Rev. Philip Foster
Who has a lovely video on climate science here:
http://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/2950662
After intermittently trying vainly to talk to the WUWT-migrants occupying Curry's blog I have now given up.
In my occasional dips in there I saw (off the top of my head):
> Claims that the term "acidification" is a vicious scaremongering plot, and that one cannot say something is "warming" unless it is actually "warm". Deviation from this line among the ranks was quickly rectified.
> Claims that the US military spends precisely nothing on energy security.
> Repeated baseless assertions of fraud, lying, cheating and fabrication - but Don Easterbrook's attempt to hide the incline gets a pass.
> Approval of a certain PhD's "W" theory.
> Constant repetition that "denier" is indelibly linked to "holocaust".
> More "I used to swallow the party line, but then CA opened my eyes to the truth" revelatory anecdotes than I care to mention.
Once again I am amazed at the ability of certain groups to reshape reality around them simply through blind repetition. Just the bare faced mendacity of spewing unsubstantiated venom at every turn *while simultaneously* complaining about their opponents being unreasonable and uncivil is astonishing.
Stephenson's ANATHEM and Pynchon's AGAINST THE DAY are two of my favorites (and the author's other works as well).
Grapes of Wrath (an eye opener for X Gen)
Crime and Punishment (a mind expander for any Gen)
The Wrecking Crew (Tom Franks)
Confessions of An Economic Hitman (John Perkins)
The Exception to the Rulers (Amy Goodman- get it on audio to hear the actual interviews she discusses).
@Bruce Sharp, books I thoroughly and unreservedly enjoyed:
Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell - Susanna Clarke
Middlesex - Jeffrey Eugenides
Anansi Boys - Neil Gaiman
An Equal Music - Vikram Seth
And [cannot leave](http://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/index.cfm?book_number=625) out [Morgan's Run](http://books.google.com.au/books?id=cHPG9EKdZFEC&printsec=frontcover&dq…) an essential for Aus Historical Fiction.
This week, I saw the ever wrong James Delingpole refer to The Guardian's forums as "Komment Macht Frei". Apparently, this is acceptable.
For fiction I'd pick _Slapstick_ by Kurt Vonnegut and _Mother London_ by Michael Moorcock.
For non-fiction: _Rare Earth_ by Ward & Brownlee and _Growing Up Absurd_ by Paul Goodman.
Good Omens Gaiomann & Pratchett
Very clever, with some amusing AGW references in it ...
Confederacy of Dunces, obviously.
Some stand-outs I've recently read (or, more likely, re-read):
"Nostromo", Conrad
"Cryptonomicon", Stephenson
"Gorki Park", Cruz Smith
"England's Last War Against France: Fighting Vichy 1940-1942", Smith
Speaking of Cruz Smith, his more recent "Wolves Eat Dogs", set in the area around Chernobyl, is well worth reading - a highlight is a seriously chilling description of the meltdown of the power plant there.
Recently. I read Homer's The Iliad. It was around the time the Greek fiscal crisis came to a head. Public policy does not seem to have become more effective in Greece since the seige of Troy.
Paul UK:
O'Sullivan's LinkedIn profile says he was born and educated in the UK, though he stayed in the US for quite some time.
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a
John Ralston Saul recently re-read The Unconscious Civilisation. Now going back for another round with Voltaire's Bastards.
And I'm definitely pencilling in a diary slot for The Subversive Family by Ferdinand Mount. I've already read it a couple of times, but there's always more to find in a well written book.
Good topical book ? An Australian one of course : "The Weather Makers" - Tim Flannery. This sure is a good rollicking comedy - it's definitely worth a re-read ! :-)
Bruce Sharp: Latest on-topic books for this blog I read are probably
* "The world without us" by Alan Weisman (awesome)
* "Storms of my grandchildren" by James Hansen (not good, sadly. He just isn't a writer of the same calibre as he is a scientist)
* "Collapse" by Jared Diamond (great, but getting a bit dated).
I managed to get hold of "Merchants of doubt" with much effort, but haven't read it yet.
All time most important (non-biblical) books for me are probably
* "Civil disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau
* "Les miserables" by Victor Hugo
* "The great divorce" by C.S. Lewis (I'm another fan, Frank!)
Billy thanks for the reminder. The Weather Makers was a good read.
He made a point that is still with me today relating to our fortunate and fragile position. We could have easily used a CFC equivalent based on bromine (rather the Chlorine). But chance had it that CFCs were slightly cheaper than there its Bromine equivalent. If the costs had gone the other way, we would have destroyed the ozone layer before we had a chance to measure the Bromine's compound's impact.
That is a powerful idea.
Nightwatch by Terry Pratchett, especially in these times.
*Something Under The Bed Is Drooling: A Calvin and Hobbes Collection*, by Bill Watterson. You have to respect the classics.
Scott M:
And the goons over at WUWT have crazy conspiracy theories about this latest move by Democrats:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/18/cuccinelli-mann-probe-takes-a-biz…
Harald Korneliussen:
> (I'm another fan, Frank!)
:)
1. The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter
2. Overshoot by William Catton
3. Capital as Power by Bichler and Nitzan
Speaking of books...
Please can people here help me with a few climate change related points? One of my projects for 2011 is to learn more about climate change. Call this a New Year's resolution if you will. I think that an open thread is appropriate for people to reply to this post or otherwise ignore it.
This is a long post: The information request is in the first part - the rest is background information about myself.
I'm looking for information about climate change. Maybe the posters here can suggest sources in one or more of the following areas:
I think with RealClimate, links there to other resources and blogs like Deltoid, I've got the online part of the reality angle covered.
Background information and motivation...
I'm a physicist with a PhD in surface science (i.e. I know a reasonable amount about molecular and chemical physical physics, as well as surfaces - obviously, but fixing broken vacuum systems is actually my forte). I've been out of research for ten years now, but am still otherwise involved in surface science.
About ten years ago, I discovered creationism. This was wonderful, since I have learned so much about evolution and biology - I would never have otherwise gone into the subject in such detail. Most of what I learned came from t.o and Dawkins' books.
I never had too much interest in climate change until about 5-6 years ago. I went in as a "skeptic", and soon found that the other "skeptics" used the same tactics as creationists. A couple of articles in New Scientist set me straight and I left it at that. It's been interesting me more recently, so I want to learn more in a reasonably structured way.
Someone else mentioned 'The Screwtape Letters' to me recently. I'll have to get a copy, sounds interesting.
If you want to follow biblical themes into the Bible itself, Job is a very deep read.
Not long ago I read Dracula. It starts out thrilling but becomes dull in the second half. You lose the sense being in the story (crucial for a supernatural tale like this) because I feel diarists wouldn't spend half as many words gushing admiration for their friends in such high stress situations. Plus the finale is not nearly as exciting as I'd hoped.
All-time favourite books? There are mentions for high school favourites Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird, though I read the latter well after high school. Terry Pratchett always has something to offer, too many good ones to choose a favourite, and away from full-on fiction, Bill Bryson's travel books are always hilarious. And only partly fiction.
Well done jakerman (#24), retrospective alarmism now too ? Why stop there ? We could have 'parallel universe alarmism' too.... the mind boggles....
If at this late stage you are still capable of accepting a single word Mr Flannery says, then you could only be described as foolhardy.
By the way, where is poor old Tim Flannery ? I do hope the poor chap has not drowned in the Murray River, which would 'never flow again' ! :-)
Interesting to see what little ole Billy Bob Hall had to say on this subject some time back - before I was banned by ole timbo here.
hinschelwood @ 30
Books: Some I've heard good things about are: Spencer Weart's "the discovery of global warming" on both the science and the history of the science; Tim Flannery's "The Weather Makers" on both the science and politics; Naomi Oreske's "Merchants of Doubt" on the disinformation campaigns behind denialism; Clive Hamilton's "Scorcher" on the Australian politics. Ruddiman's "Plows, plagues and petroleum" also gets a good look in.
"high class denialism": well you could try Roy Spencer or Roger Pielke senior who preserve some kind of fig leaf of respectability occasionally.
Right wing commentators: about the only ones that spring to mind are Harry Clarke and Tokyo Tom (bloggers). And Ross Garnaut, if your definition of "right wing" encompasses "neo-centrist free market capitalism with minimum necessary restrictions" a la the modern Labor party. Check out Lihir Gold's environmental record to see my point.
@Hinschelwood - I reckon a good place to start might be the IPCC's AR4 Working Group I "The Physical Science Basis":
It covers:
.Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
.Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing
.Observations: Atmospheric Surface and Climate Change
.Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
.Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level
.Palaeoclimate
.Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
.Climate Models and their Evaluation
.Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
.Global Climate Projections
.Regional Climate Projections
I think Vince's recommendation is good, hinschelwood, but I'd approach it differently.
Get the IPCC stuff assembled and have a look at any specific topics you feel you already have a bit of a handle on.
Then go for Weart or Flannery. As you read them you'll find things that pique your interest. Use that as your path into other topics in the report.
For the denialist blogs? I'd stick with Roy Spencer. His posts are OKish usually, the comments can get a bit tedious. When he does a proper technical physics post, and they are pretty good - it turns into a seething ant-heap.
hinschelwood
I'd add John Cook's Site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/
And David Archer's video lectures:
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html
Re "*What are the best denier blogs to read? Which have the most convincing arguments or are the most referenced by deniers?*
There are different answers to each of the elements of that question. The "best denier" blogs that tackle the science are those like Spencer, but they also tend to be the least convincing (because they deal more in something trying to approach decent hypothsis testing etc).
The ones most convincing as measured by convinced nature of of its poster tend to be CA or WUWT, which neither really tackle the science. I agree with your dismisal of WUWT. I found that CA ends up being pretty much an unbalanced attack of the state of science, which seems enough to leave its readers satisfied.
Science of Doom is good, it reviews the sciecne but shirks the implications of the science too much for me, so "deniers" might appreciate that aspect.
BTW, Spencer Weart's "the discovery of global warming is avaliable an online free resource.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
Not to be confused with Roy Spencer the "skeptic".
Another Climategate whopper from McIntyre
http://deepclimate.org/2011/01/20/another-climategate-whopper-from-mcin…
No one has been more outraged by Trenberthâs broadside than Steve McIntyre, who decided to bring what Judith Curry called a âhistorical perspectiveâ and revisited a âclimategateâ controversy about âkeeping papers outâ of IPCC AR4. McIntyre dismissed Trenberthâs defence of Phil Jones as a âfirst time IPCC writing team memberâ as âreadily demonstrated to be untrueâ. McIntyreâs ironclad proof? Despite Trenberthâs claim of being an IPCC âveteranâ, both Trenberth and Jones had exactly the same IPCC resume as Chapter 2 contributing authors for the Second and the Third Assessment Reports, before becoming lead authors together in AR4.
Iâm sure regular Deep Climate readers will be shocked â just shocked â to find out that a closer look behind McIntyreâs selective facts tells a completely different story. Trenberth was clearly referring to experience as a lead author (contributing authors are not on the âwriting teamâ). And both Jones and Trenberth may have been Chapter 2 contributing authors on previous IPCC reports, but Trenberth was also both a Chapter and Technical Summary Lead Author in both 1995 and 2001. So, once again, the latest âclimategateâ scandal proves to be yet another outright falsehood from McIntyre.
DC. Shocked, I'm shocked, I tell you.
Such a reliable person getting elementary facts wrong. Whatever will I do!
Back to more general books.
I overlooked 'Black Rednecks and White Liberals' by Thomas Sowell.
Strange, I suppose it's a bit like Ferdinand Mount writing that book on families I mentioned earlier. Both are extremely conservative when they're not rabidly rightwing, but as historians they are fantastic. I've never read a word of Sowell's on current economics or politics that I agreed with. But this book is absolutely terrific.
[Frank](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3134…).
Isn't it just always the conservatives who take a salacious interest in other people's personal predilections?
Personally, I couldn't care less whether Cuccinelli's man-probe took a bizarre twist, or if its batteries just went flat.
If McIntyre was to pop on a pair of size 40 shoes, a red nose and frightwig, then drive round a circus ring in a comedy car that fell apart when it collided with a balloon, could he appear any more ridiculous than his current ongoing, piffling would-be attack series on Trenberth et al?
Anybody would think just by the sheer amount of less-than-substantive foam he's desperately trying to whip up recently that it's all meant to act as some sort of tawdry distraction from his involvement with Wegman and the real ongoing investigation.
An interesting news item from Leo Hickman concerning "educational" "charity" The Global Warming Policy Foundation:
[Global Warming Policy Foundation donor funding levels revealed](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/20/global-warming-policy…)
They therefore have fewer than 100 members but have an income of over £500,000 pounds.
You can see some detail on the [Charity Commission website](http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/Ch…). They spent precisely £0 on charitable activities and £128,342 on 'Other' (presumably that mostly accounted for by the salaries and related overheads for their 3 employees). Most of their incomes has been "retained for future use"?
Fake charity if ever I saw one.
@James Haughton
@Vince Whirlwind
@adelady
@jakerman
Many thanks for the suggestions. That is a really big help. There's so much there, it's hard to know where to start, so extra thanks to adelady for suggesting a strategy. I've had a look at the books and they seem to be the things I'm looking for, but I'll start with the IPCC. I didn't know about video lectures - that'll be interesting to try out. Marvellous, these interthingys.
I was on the bus and I caught snippets of Bob Carter being interviewed this morning on the ABC, obviously to "balance" a NOAA? report on climate. My ears pricked up at the line "no scientific evidence". The ABC have stopped calling Plimer after his Monbiot debacle. Bob Carter is the new "voice of reason". Has anyone seen a decent review of Carter's book "Climate: The Counter Consensus"? He needs to promote it more. I noticed Plimer's travesty in the Co-Op bookshop but not Carter's.
Bjorn Lomborg was on UK Channel 4's new satirical comedy news show '10 o'clock live' tonight.
As far as I could tell he said nothing that was untrue, focusing mostly on the fact that climate change mitigation will be harder and more expensive than adaptation. But doesn't he miss the point? What are we trying to mitigate? It's not simply temperature rise, otherwise geoengineering would be a cracking idea rather than a possible last resort; how does it solve ocean acidification and the lack of energy diversity?
Still, he seemed very serious about the threat that global warming poses and this was well received by the British host and audience.
Does anyone know what's meant by the strange claim in [this article](http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Reports+2010+to+be+the+Warmest+Year+on+Re…) : "NASA chose to throw out or reduce the statistical significance of satellite measurements, which showed far cooler temperatures"? Is the author a WTFUWW hoodwinkee, or something?
re: #43
This is no surprise.
See the board. This is Lord Lawson and a bunch of his friends. I'm told by Brit friends this is neither a young nor liberal crowd. Lawson of course has an in-law well-known here at Deltoid.
Well, pough, the baseline for satellite data is later than it is for the surface obs data and, since it's warming with time, the baseline is higher.
But the barnpot denidiot sees the anomaly of surface stations at 0.53 and satellite at 0.35 (or whatever it is) and sees that the anomaly is lower.
Therefore, the satellite data is showing cooler temperatures!!!
The absolute idiocy of course is by wilful ingnorance of the difference between anomaly and actual temperature when addressing different baseline datasets.
Further to my #43, what I find more interesting than the low number of members the GWPF has attracted (as well as membership fees they attract individual donations) but the fact they are sitting on most of their income. That suggests to me that they received some rather large initial donations and need to sit on that money in order to fund their activities for at least the next couple of years - and their activities consist mainly of spreading misinformation via their website and through media lobbying. There is nothing âeducationalâ about them. My other concern is that, as a registered charity, donors to the GWPF can claim Gift Aid Tax Relief (assuming they are UK taxpayers). In effect the UK taxpayer (that includes me) is subsidising a sham âeducationalâ charity.
Anthony Watts defends the idea of misinterpreting others' words:
> [James Hrynyshyn] seems to have a real problem with people (me) interpreting Twitter feeds in ways that perhaps the originators didnât intend (or like).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/twittering-heights-and-knife-figh…
Don't know if anyone seen this (Willard pointed it out over at shewonk):
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/32322
Tim Ball thrown in front of a bus by CFP. In a way, that is. After all, they published the original piece of nonsense. And of course that little piece filled with lies already went the rounds. And no doubt they will publish more trash by Tim Ball in the future (please, for once, show me wrong?!?!).
Marco, Weaver should continue to press for damages from both CFP and Dr. Tim Ball.
Money is what they listen to. So make it known that every time they write and publish nonsense, they stand to lose money. Then they'll listen.
-- frank
Some happy bloggers gloating about CFP grovelling to Andrew Weaver over untrue statements made by Tim Ball (as well they should):
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2011/01/tim-ball-de-balled.html#links
http://www.desmogblog.com/canadafreepress-grovels-apology-weaver
Desmogblog changed their headline, so the link is now:
http://www.desmogblog.com/canadafreepress-apology-weaver
In the interest of keeping those of the CACO2e-warming persuasion informed of what's happening outside:
Thursday 21st Jan 2011 was the highest tide for a year and the sea level at my 48 year benchmark which I checked at the top of that tide, was 30 cms below 1963 king tides.
According to interpretations of the satellite measurements, SL should have been around 15 cms above this benchmark but it seems that SLR isn't happening.
Even with the current La Nina, neg IPO, yesterday's 30 knot on-shore winds and rain squalls, below normal BP etc, local SL still refuses to rise and is actually 10 cms lower than last January's king tide.
While North Carolina and California are dealing with rising sea levels and coastal erosion:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/01/18/926909/rising-seas-will-make-nc-…
http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/retreat+face+rising/4147038/story.ht…
Coastal erosion and houses falling into the sea has been hapening forever and is not the same thing as SLR.
Seas can travel miles inland under certain circumstances and retreat just as quickly. That has always happened.
How long is "forever", in your temporal measurement system? Which scientific bodies use it?
Do you only talk in scientific terms? That's funny, I got the impression recently you were sceptical of scientific truth.
But "forever" means as long as people have been building shelters and that goes back a while.
SD
When a scientific discussion is being had, yes.
Don't verbal me, and don't misdirect. I said that science was unable to deliver absolute truth or certainty, but was an attempt to approach insight.
So perhaps 30,000 years? Tell me -- what evidence are you relying on for shelters falling into the sea 30,000 years ago? Wouldn't this imply a permanent dwelling? Wouldn't this put the earliest date when such might have happened closer to 5-7000 years ago?
"Forever" when used in a discussion that covers geological time (cf: the climate is always changing trope) ought top be used with caution.
It's doubtless true that coastal erosion has been happening everywhere that sea meets land for as long as both conditions have obtained. The questions, as they are for climate change more generally, are: how much?; how fast?, from what base? where? and with what consequences for humans?
Your wave of the hand is as vacuous as any of the dissemblers on this topic.
Fran,
We are discussing sea erosion and storms being mistaken for SLR.
Now, what's the point you're making apart from the usual ad hom?
>*Coastal erosion and houses falling into the sea has been hapening forever and is not the same thing as SLR.*
Neither is king tide level in one town equivalent to global average SLR. So your point is Spangle?
I didn't claim it to represent global average but if after nearly half a century there has been only neg. SLR at a given point then this graph showing around 5 cms/century SLR is more believable than the satellites and CSIRO:
http://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/sydney-noaa.jpg
SD
Ha ... another term you use without understanding. I'll give you this ... you are at least consistent in this respect.
It ought to be amusing that you imagine your measurements of SLR are more reliable than those of professionals, but really it's just sad the lengths people like you will go to in order to prosecute what are in the end, cultural claims.
You're cherry picking drongo. You need to look at all the data not just the tiny bits that meet your confirmation bias.
Ah, Drongo, you've finally reappeared.
Still stuck on sea levels, eh? How about we resume the conversation from the [last thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php), and specifically, your lack of reply to [my last comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…) on it.
I'mnot sure if I'll have too much time to play with you, as I am trying to read Richard Tol's ecologically-challenged rate-discounting papers, but I amsure that others here will asume the role of cat to your mouse.
You could start by addressing my point about fitting lines to oscillating trends...
Oh, and Drongo...
Could you please explain why [satellite data](http://i55.tinypic.com/2w2g237.jpg) indicates sea level rise?
What does your line on a rock know that satellites don't - or, rather, what do satellites know that your line on a rock doesn't?
(Yes, this is a trick question. It means that you will have to go back and revisit the many points that so many of us made on the previous thread. Good luck with that.)
And "oh" again Drongo.
Could you please post a photograph of your "benchmark".
It would greatly inform the conversation.
Bernard,
Sorry to disturb you when you are busy attacking the messenger again but you can check it out and comment here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/01/7242/comment-page-1/#comment-4…
So Drongo, your still adhering to [your old fallacious logic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3149…).
Quite a commitment drongo.
This is hilarious Drongo.
Or at least, it would be if it were not so sad.
So, your "sea wall" is actually a canal on the Nerang River? Which suburb is it in exactly?
On The Bog you say:
So, the river entrance was enlarged and you perceive a decrease in level. You do realise that if your perception is true, that the very fact of a drop indicates that your site is above mean sea level, which negates any of your subjective comparisons over the years.
And I note that you indicate that "king tides remained much the same but possibly [if anything] slightly higher", which directly contradicts your claim of no sea level rise.
Further, you have no documentation of times of observations (especially relative to astronomical tide turnings), of ambient barometric pressures at those times, of regional barometric pressures and ocean current patterns, of river flow ratess/volume, and that's just for starters.
And you still haven't explained what the satellite results mean.
Still, I am impressed at one thing - your ability to remain blind to a large body of fact whilst doggedly hanging on to a discreditted ideological teddy bear.
Thanks Bernard, I love that teddy bear image.
Much loved, grubby all over, threadbare in many places, one ear missing, the other dangling by a thread. And never, ever let mummy take it to the mending box or the washing machine.
Please Bernard, do try not to be entirely fact free.
First it's an estuarine river wall not a canal.
King tide levels are always above MSLs. [who'd a thought]
Top of tides are always observed at high tide, slack water. Not at any predicted time. What you see is what is.
Barometric Pressures for this time of year are almost always close to normal but certainly not high enough to begin to account for the discrepancy observed.
I made an observation about the satellites if you'd care to come over and comment. Who knows? It could even make some sense.
And instead of your usual esoteric waffle you could always prove me wrong by showing me the results of your own obs or anyone else's in this area.
Adelady likewise. Always interested in data rather than waffle however much it may affect catastrophic theories.
@74: No sd, if you were truly interested in data you wouldn't be making your ludicrous claims.
Zoot,
Perhaps you've got some local data to refute it?
No?
Thought not.
>*Always interested in data rather than waffle however much it may affect catastrophic theories.*
No [you are not drongo](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3149…)!
Drongo,
Keep hugging that teddy bear.
Janet, at least I offer you data.
You, like Zoot, are entirely fact and evidence free but still you attack the messenger.
It's interesting that the analogy of hugging teddy bears comes from those with nothing else to cling to.
>*You, like Zoot, are entirely fact and evidence free but still you attack the messenger.*
On the contrary drongo we are continuing a conversation from way back where [you rejected the data](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php)!
We are well aware of the data. Just as were are aware of your cherry picking to avoid [the data](http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html).
Spangled Drongo asks for data. Here you go:
99.96 Bradman, DG
60.97 Pollock, RG
60.83 Headley, GA
60.73 Sutcliffe, H
59.23 Paynter, E
What's that, you say? This data has nothing to do with sea level rise? Well "snap", SD! Neither does yours.
:-)
I and many others smarter, have already commented on the chances of that "virtual data" having any credibility and I am trying to point out what is happening in the real world:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/01/7242/
That was where we were at, now, do you possibly have any local observations to offer?
No?
What a shame but I don't expect it will stop you believing in virtual reality.
Drongo, you have no data.
But I'm prepared to acknowledge your man-in-the-street anecdotal evidence completely overturns the evidence of calibrated data collected by highly trained scientists from all over the globe.
Now will you go away?
Drongo goes full circle in warp 10 speed, from claiming that:
>*"at least I offer you data. You, like Zoot, are entirely fact and evidence free but still you attack the messenger."*
To dismissing the data, and calling it *"virtual"*.
Come back when you've got some real data drongo, not your cherry picks.
Drongo,
Not sure I've seen you answer this question: what is the exact location you observe sea level at?
In Brisbane, there are lots of people who have noticed that sea levels are CONSIDERABLY higher than last year.
There's REAL data for you!
What you go now, Drongo?
When the little doltoids are having a reign of terror with a balloon on a stick, isn't it awful when someone arrives with a pin.
There, there! Never mind. You'll learn to cope eventually.
Well Wow they'll only think that if they're like Drongo can't tell the difference between a tidal river and the sea. I hope that's where you were going with that ;-)
But only a doltoid couldn't tell the difference between a tidal river and a flooding river.
Where did I read this recently and why does it remind me of this blog?
"There is a simple way to tell the difference between propagandists and scientists. If scientists have a theory they search diligently for data that might actually contradict the theory so that they can fully test its validity or refine it. Propagandists, on the other hand, carefully select only the data that might agree with their theory and dutifully ignore any data that disagrees with it."
>*Propagandists, on the other hand, carefully select only the data that might agree with their [claims] and dutifully ignore any data that disagrees with it."*
You do realize you just [skewered yourself](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3149…) again drongo.
>Propagandists, on the other hand, carefully select only the data that might agree with their theory and dutifully ignore any data that disagrees with it.
Pretty much the entirety of available sea level data has been presented to you many times in this thread and others. Clearly us 'Doltoids' do look at all data. Papers that discuss and dissect the differences between measurement methods have been posted. Etc, etc, etc.
You keep going on about one location in far SE Queensland. Do you realise you're therefore a propogandist by your own definition? Also, are you going to answer my reasonable question above, repeated here for your convenience?
>What is the exact location you observe sea level at?
Moving on.
>But only a doltoid couldn't tell the difference between a tidal river and a flooding river.
It doesn't occur to you that Wow might have been joking?
Let me spell it out for the doltoids for the last time.
Sceptics don't advocate the AGW theory.
But doltoids do.
Therefore it is not the sceptics but the advocates that need to seek out opposing data.
This blog pushes the tired old satellite data that no one in their right mind would believe.
But doltoids do.
I'm just trying to show you what's going on under your collective noses and maybe do some checking yourselves.
Sensible people: 'This is important.'
Drongo (facing the other way): 'Look at that!'
I agree with comment 88 "When the little doltoids are having a reign of terror with a balloon on a stick, isn't it awful when someone arrives with a pin."
> Sceptics don't advocate the AGW theory.
They don't? Who does, then?
> Therefore it is not the sceptics but the advocates that need to seek out opposing data.
[It's out there](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif).
But you're not a skeptic, are you drongo.
> This blog pushes the tired old satellite data that no one in their right mind would believe.
You mean people like Roy Spencer???
> I'm just trying to show you what's going on under your collective noses and maybe do some checking yourselves.
Why don't you do more than try and actually *show* some of your evidence?
> It doesn't occur to you that Wow might have been joking?
Actually, I was "doing a Drongo".
> But only a doltoid couldn't tell the difference between a tidal river and a flooding river
Please elucidate. Because the sea is water and the river will flood when the oceans rise therefore the sea has risen in Brisbane.
This is the level of argument you make here, dronger.
Go prove me wrong. You'd have to explain that the sea is NOT water and that there's not a higher level of WATER in Brisbane.
(note: that's a Nahle-like argument)
canli, if deltoid is running around with a balloon on a stick, in what way can that be construed as "alarmism"?
Or are all you denialists yellow?
Wow, canli is one of the many spambots that frequent scienceblogs.
Drongo @ #79: "...still you attack the messenger."
4 hours and 9 minutes later:
Drongo @ #88: "... little doltoids ..."
Hypocrisy fail.
It's like he doesn't even read his own posts. "I never saw a man get through a day so fast..."
"I'm just trying to show you what's going on" - so, do you have any data that actually relate to sea level, not estuaries?
Drongo reminds me of another brave iconoclast (which is to say, crank) who "disproved" the rotation of the earth based on [observations from his garden](http://oddbooks.co.uk/oddbooks/westfield.html). The comments on that thread are worth reading as well.
Drongo @90:
>*Propagandists, on the other hand, carefully select only the data that might agree with their [claims] and dutifully ignore any data that disagrees with it."*
Then waits till @93 to again skewers himself:
>*Therefore it is not the sceptics but the advocates that need to seek out opposing data. This blog pushes the tired old satellite data that no one in their right mind would believe.*
Any data that shows global SLR is "dutifully ignore[d]" or dutifully dismissed as something with unsupportable assertion such as "*no one in their right mind would believe.*" But drongo and is intellectual equals produce no contradictory global SL data and no corrections to the data that they don't want to believe.
Drongo.
Your photo shows a typical canal wall, in the extensive canal estate along the lower reaches of the Nerang River. It is therefore a canal on an estuarine river, and your protestation is simply a vacuous strawman.
And whether it is identified as a canal or as an "estuarine" river, the fact remains that it will be a site that is above mean sea level. This is why on balance the river still flows out to sea at that point.
And I will reiterate, by your own words the level dropped after the river mouth was enlarged. This indicates that the river was affected by an impoundment effect at its mouth (which, as intimated by the previous paragraph, is a trivial point anyway), further indicating the inescapable fact of the height of your site above mean sea level, and explaining why king tide levels would decrease after mouth widening.
All you've done Drongo is measure tide levels at your perception of astronomical turning, in an environment subject to significant and frequent hydrodynamic change. You have not actually measured real astronomical tide variation, and you certainly haven't been measuring sea level.
So what? I did not at any point say that king tide levels are not above mean sea level, and you are repating again my point - being on a tidal river whose level apparently went down (according to you) when the mouth was opened, it is quite trivial that your site is therefore above mean sea level, but below highest astronomical tide level.
You are simply trying to erect another very clumsy strawman.
Well, that's what you say. But how do we know that you're competent to measure these tides if you have no formal protocol that can be checked, and how is it that you're always at your station whenever the tide is turning? Especially over the whole span of the decades during which you claim to have been recording.
Further, the tide height in a river is, as I have repeatedly pointed out, due to much more than just the atronomical influence. The timing of recording can be a clue that what you are observing is confounded by other factors - how many river flow values, barometric pressures, prevailing ocean current directions, and other parameters have you recorded during your exercise?
Erm, excuse me for being sceptical, but if you don't have the historic barometric data how on earth do you know what the effect of barometric pressure is? Think rationally for a moment - this alone can explain a large component of tide height modification.
In case it has escaped your attention, water height increases 1 cm for every hectopascal decrease in barometric pressure. Given that my own barometer shows a local range of less than 980 through to over 1030 hPa, this is a 50 cm potential difference to tide height. At least.
Think about it Drongo.
Heh, make your comment here. I'm not going to given Marohasy any credibility by visiting her site again... That she found it OK to post your silliness indicates that she obviously has no credibility innate to her cause, so any that she might lay claim to comes only from the presence of rational people who might drop in.
And why is it that when satellites were thought to refute global warming they were the bees' knees, but now that they are known to actually show the predicted warming, as well as irrefutable (to any but a denier) sea level rise, they are now not reliable? Heck, how is it that the technology that put them there in the first place isn't able to measure the altitudes (= sea level height) to give the accuracy that is actually needed to keep the satellite network functioning as it does?!
According to you own logic, the bloody things shouldn't be able to stay up there in the first place.
"Esoteric"?! I think you mean "grounded in basic science". If that's esoteric in your eyes, it simply indicates the scientific depauperacy of your own limited understanding.
As to data, I chased up the relevant professionally measured data for your area and posted it on the other thread. Go back and find it and consider it anew.
The denialospere is going to go into overdrive this morning as the BBC aired a documentary last night that examined denialism through the lens of climate change. The highlight is an extraordinary interview with James Delingpole. There is a review on [my blog](http://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2011/01/25/science-under-attack/).
Dr Dave, the BeeB is restricting access to this (presuable to people with UK address. I get a message "Not available in your area".
Perhaps we might watch it via a proxy server. But if that is too hard, some community minded people are giving up some of their bandwidth to [share it](http://www.alivetorrents.com/torrent/9293136/bbc-horizon-2011-science-u…) where the Beeb is restricting it.
@104
It was an extraordinary act of hubris from Delingpole to agree to be interviewed by Sir Paul. I wouldnât be surprised if it is the first time Delingpole has met a scientist (if you discount meeting Richard Lindzen at a Heartland jolly). Delingpole obviously thought he could hold his own in a one-to-one situation. Delingpole floundered really, toe-curlingly, badly.
I particularly liked the point Sir Paul referred to "the medical consensus" on cancer treatment, but Delingpole had to retort referring to "the medical establishment". In other words, Delingpole agrees there is such a thing as a scientific consensus but had to give it sinister and conspiratorial overtones.
As far as I can see the response of the denialists has been to attack the Royal Society, thereby only reinforcing their anti-science credentials.
More TV like this please.
> And why is it that when satellites were thought to refute global warming they were the bees' knees, but now that they are known to actually show the predicted warming, as well as irrefutable (to any but a denier) sea level rise, they are now not reliable?
Because they're DENIERS, not skeptics nor contrarians.
If they'd been even a *little* but skeptical, they may have cited the satellite picture as evidence of a countering measurement but then when the satellite agrees, a *skeptic* would have then seen their concern addressed and shown unsubstantiated.
If they'd been a *contrarian*, they would have always been against the satellite on Roy's site even when it was showing for Roy a cooling.
But no. They're denying any evidence they don't like.
They are deniers.
Bernard,
Since you know the site better than I do and you are so sure it is a canal rather than the main river estuary etc there is not much point in trying to discuss this with such a pompous ignoramus.
Better to just stick with your Mountain Pygmy Possums and Northofagus Moorei.
But remember the old adage and try not to do too much harm.
Have there even been any scientific papers published in "Earth and Environment"? This one claims to refute the surface temperature record as unreliable, hence there is no way there is global warming. I don't have a subscription (surprise) so I don't have access to the gory details of the paper. I presume this graph shows the noise in all its glory. Even if the surface record was unreliable, The Greenland cores plus the UAH dataset (blessed by Easterbrook and Spencer respectivedly) would give "cause for pause" as to a warming trend.
The denial merry-go-round continues between "it's not warming" ... "it is warming but it is not CO2" and back again.
Anthony, you mean 'Energy and Environment' of course. And I'm going to say: probably, maybe, some vaguely scientific papers have been published in there at some point. Probably a failure of E&E's 'review' process, which is supposed to filter out any real science. The editorial board has promised this won't happen again.
As for that graph, I can only say: bwahahahaha! Yes, it's entirely correct that the uncertainties in the late 19th century are about the same as those in the early 21st century. Not.
There's a simple answer, Drongo.
Tell us where your sea wall is.
"Tell us where your sea wall is."
Bernard,
What's the point? You have to accept what I tell you because you can't be a witness to the past when you weren't there. I don't have written and photographic recordings but I do have family and neighbours who vividly recall swimming, boating and canoeing off that step during old king tides when, if another boat passed, a wave would run along the full length of the step to the squeals of delight of the kids standing on it etc.
Either you accept it and we discuss it or you reject it and we forget about it.
James Delingpole probably wishes he'd kept his trap shut.
The only thing missing was the tinfoil hat.
Wasn't drongo droning on about this exact same thing here a year or two ago??
@112: Game, set and match to Bernard J.
@105
Sir Paul's Horizon programme is now on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MultiInternetfreak#p/u/5/o2wMGU8-2bE
Well worth a view.
[Desmogblog](http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-change-individual-action-pointless) has someone who considers individual action pointless.
My response: why does that mean I shouldn't bother making the insignificant difference I can? It doesn't matter if your struggle is pointless against tyranny, the point is that YOU TRIED. And it's the same here.
What are your views?
I think individual action shows possibilities. In different contexts that can be a big effect or no effect.
I suggest doing as much as you can until there is a conflict where individual action gets in the way of structural change. I.e. donating in kind or in money to climate activists or political parties might have more effect than spending more on carbon offsetting.
I said "canal", Drongo says "estuarine river".
I say it doesn't matter what you call it, what is important is that it's mean level is above mean sea level.
Drongo tries to shift the argument from this salient point and says:
to which I respond:
which would resolve the issue of it's relative altitude compared to mean sea level, and simultaneously, if trivially, determine to what extent it is actually in the estuary of the Nerang River or, instead, in the kilometres of canal estate on the same river.
Drongo spits the dummy and says:
Since it seems that Drongo has comprehension problems, I will list the points:
They are the points.
I reject anything that drongo infers from his sea wall "observations" until he can produce at least a relatively specific indication of the nature of his site, by describing its general location on the Nerang River. I'm not asking for an address; nor I don't want one - all I want is sufficient description of his site that some conclusions about the nature of the hydrology at that point might be made. Drongo makes extensive criticism of many specific tide gauges around Australia, so why can he not avail his own site to similar scrutiny?
If drongo isn't prepared to put forward at least that much information he should just forget about his crusade, and retract everything that he has said regarding sea level rise.
Oh, and drongo, I really am trying to play nicely, so I will ask you for the last time - where (to within 500 metres, say) is your sea wall?
BJ, there's a post with photo from the spangled drongo over at the home of Socratic irony, if you can bear the visit.
If you have any data for the area I would be very pleased.
The wall is on the main channel of the river on Chevron Island, downstream of the Chevron Is bridge.
There are some good animations of the complicated nature of sea-level change globally here, if anyone is interested.
Bernard,
I've been going to the Gold Coast for over 40 years and can tell you what drongo has been carefully avoiding - the river has undergone massive development and change over that time - canal estates, dredging, moving sand bars etc.
Only a complete drongo would think there is anything meangingful in the casual observations of tide heights at one point over 40 years apart relying on nothing more than memory and some vague family anecdotes.....but that's enough for a denier to declare that the satellites are wrong.
Oh for crying put loud! A quick examination of Google Earth imagery (a 30 second search using the phrase "Chevron Island, Australia" does the trick) shows that your site is 7 km from the mouth of the estuary as the crow flies in an area that is intensely urbanised and undergoing rapid change. How on Earth do you think that you can get a meaningful sea level record from a location like that? This is idiotic at every level.
We would fail a 12 year old in a geography school test for making that sort of claim.
As per usual, once the data is made available, the denialist "argument" falls apart faster than a freshly filled toilet paper teapot.
Ol' drongo could only have been so coy for so long if he'd already realised he was being misleading.
Well Spangled Drongo, you may not see it but ALL of the scepticism (yes, real life scepticism) that has come your way from us 'Doltoids' is fully vindicated.
It's all been said above, but I'll add my tuppence since I was on the GC a couple of months ago too. It's not just that this island is a long way from the mouth of the Nerang River, which of course has had its flow modified by dredging and the widenening of the channel at Southport, but it's right behind that hotbed of development, Surfer's Paradise, where land drainage and channel management has changed radically due to man's desire to put some really tall buildings on a spit of land between a beach and a tidal river.
All of this means that this is a monumentally inappropriate site at which to attempt to measure sea level.
Drongo was also being disengenuous about the anecdote about boats wakes washing up over the top of the wall.
He knows that strict speed limits have been introduced in that part of the Nerang river - for the purpose of reducing wakes.
Drongo by name, drongo by nature.
For those that don't know, the mouth of the Nerang is upstream of the main Gold Coast Bridge which crosses the Southport Broadwater between Southport and Surfers Paradise.
The wall in question is a couple of kilometers upstream from the mouth, opposite Budds Beach, where the river starts to broaden.
From the GC Bridge north you have the Broadwater which emties into the Pacific at the Southport seaway.
All works that have been carried out influencing tide levels in this river and broadwater between this wall since it was built and the Pacific Ocean have increased the tide flows not restricted them. Because of the exponential increase in the number and size of boats using this area, that work has been considerable.
That work, as I have said before, lowered the low tides and raised the high tides as you would expect because it made the river tide range more in keeping with the ocean tide range.
That should have raised king tide levels in the river but after nearly half a century of what we are repeatedly being told is SLR, instead of being considerably higher, the KTL is a foot lower, and during a La Nina and neg IPO to boot.
>*All works that have been carried out influencing tide levels in this river and broadwater between this wall since it was built and the Pacific Ocean have increased the tide flows not restricted them. Because of the exponential increase in the number and size of boats using this area, that work has been considerable.*
>*That work, as I have said before, lowered the low tides and raised the high tides as you would expect because it made the river tide range more in keeping with the ocean tide range.*
Are you sure you've accounted for everything Drongo? I mean you have thrown out the entire global satellite system of SLR based on your single point of a river wall, in a location where you admit the river management works that have been "considerable" due to "the exponential increase in the number and size of boats using this area".
Do you think measuring SLR from a river could be problematic?
;)
Jakerman, how could you doubt?
We are in the presence of a 'skeptic'. Surely, if he can throw out the entire satellite observation system based on a single point anecdotal observation, it should be good enough for you.
The short answer, Drongo, is that
- your measurements are suspect and undocumented
- your data is severely restricted in time and geography
- your interpretations of your incomplete and undocumented observations are plainly refuted by the comprehensive and well-documented data from many sources using tidal gauges and satellites such as:
Exactly how you imagine your throwaway assertion about something you have no evidence or documentation for should trump the work done by relevantly-qualified individuals is possibly something you should explore with a suitably-qualified mental health practitioner.
Gee vince, whereja come across that?
What a weapon!
And BTW, where's bernie gone?
How can he have game, set and match when he won't come out of the toilet?
Actually, I've just followed "GWB's Nemesis"'s suggestion and googled for "Chevron Island". What a joke you are, Drongo, it's nowhere bloody near the sea in the first place.
What's more, there is a wedge-shaped area of clearly artificial land immediately downstream of Budd's beach which extends 500m into the river, and 1km along it which I am willing to bet did not exist 40 years ago.
And you reckon the tides have changed? That's perhaps the only vaguely credible thing you've had to say, ever, on any subject.
>*Gee vince, whereja come across that? What a weapon!*
Facts, evidence and socratic logic are mere trifling points to scoff at when you have drongo's faith.
Ummm, ...., spangled one, ...., most people leave the court once the game is over.
Just sayin'
"What's more, there is a wedge-shaped area of clearly artificial land immediately downstream of Budd's beach which extends 500m into the river, and 1km along it which I am willing to bet did not exist 40 years ago."
Wow! That's really showing your ignorance! How much are you willing to bet vince?
That happens to be Paradise Waters, previously known as MacIntosh Island and its outer perimeter shape is pretty much as it has always been. Filling of those islands was only allowed with dredge-spoil to prevent a change in the hydraulics. The main channel there has also been deepened and widened between Paradise Waters and The Southport School-Sundale area which is the mouth of the Nerang.
You obviously don't know the area at all yet you are quite happy to insult people who do.
What a strange, denialist bunch you are.
And anyway I am only hanging around until your mate bernie issues forth his promised pearls but he won't come out of the change room.
Drongo, can think of any reason why river esturies are not a great spot to meausre SLR? Any confounding factors come to mind?
Can you see the point of people who don't think we should chuck the global satelite data for SLR based on your mark on one wall of a river estury? (An estury that has undergone significant changes of engineering managent over the time of your observations, think more confounding factors).
Can you see how you might not quite pass the giggle test when you call others denialist when they raise problems with your approach?
Drongo's problem is that he has invested his all in a piece of unreal estate, and is terrified that it might be worthless. Self delusion is all he's got left. The fact that he invests so much time, energy & puerile fury in this thread is a measure of his anxiety, imaturity and lack of gainful employ. BJ wins (again) with patience, poise and reason.
(An estury that has undergone significant changes of engineering managent over the time of your observations, think more confounding factors).
SL [science logic] challenged Janet,
It doesn't seem to dawn on you that all this "engineering management" has done is to increase the tide flow between the ocean [bigger tide range] and the estuary [smaller tide range] and that has caused high tides in the estuary to get even higher. when you add this increased hydraulic effect plus the satellite "predictions" over half a century there should have been SL RISE of 30 cms.
But the SLs have dropped 30 cms.
Move along, move along, no catastrophes today. [what a shame]
>*It doesn't seem to dawn on you that all this "engineering management" has done is to increase the tide flow between the ocean [bigger tide range] and the estuary [smaller tide range] and that has caused high tides in the estuary to get even higher. when you add this increased hydraulic effect plus the satellite "predictions" over half a century there should have been SL RISE of 30 cms.*
It doesn't seem to have dawned on drongo that wishful thinking is no substitute for evidence and data. Bring me the evidence that the net result of the engineering management is to make the tide range just bigger (with no other confounding factors). And by how much.
Then bring me the evidence that the King tide mark on your river wall is the appropriate measure of SLR.
Then bring me the evidence that x km up a river is the appropriate place to measure SLR.
Then bring me the evidence that your king tide mark of a river wall overturns the global satellite data on SLR.
Are you starting to see why you don't even pass the giggle test drongo? But full marks for defending the indefensible. You end up providing an excellent case study in denial.
For off-the-planet Janet and any other SL challenged:
Measuring SLs by satellite involves trying to orbit the oceans at a constant height while bouncing a signal off the surface but when that surface is pear-shaped with various flat spots it is impossible to maintain a parralel course [constant altitude].
On top of this the surface of that ocean is changing altitude considerably, by the second, minute, hour, day, month etc for many reasons.
On top of this the signal is being bounced off the decks of huge amounts of shipping which gives an extremely exaggerated signal.
The end result of all these confused ststistics is a vague signal that is drowned in the noise.
Satellite measured sea level is beyond human knowledge.
Janet,
If you've got two thoughts to rub together you will surely understand what I am trying to tell you about tidal hydraulics and
Here is a photo of the wall at king tide, slack water, showing the step where KTs came to 48 years ago and the website you could read:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/01/7242/
and apart from all that I can't help you except wish you good luck.
> Jakerman, how could you doubt?
> We are in the presence of a 'skeptic'.
Indeed. All you need to do is open your mind to the idea that EVERYTHING is wrong that drongo says is wrong. Since he's an authority on nothing, this is no "appeal to authority" fallacy.
Isn't it obvious that the person who knows nothing knows everything?
It's very Buddhist. I wonder if spanked dingo has told his pastor he's not a christian...
Unfortunately drongo, a mix of your personal incredulity and a modicum of half-hearted arm waving is not enough to dismiss the science of precision radar altimetry.
You might find [the following paragraph](http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/) enlightening regarding some of your barefaced misconceptions, but then again facts rarely succeed in altering ingrained opinion no matter how misinformed that opinion may be.
"The accurate determination of the ocean height is made by first characterizing the precise height of the spacecraft above the center of the Earth. This is achieved through a technique called "precise orbit determination" (POD), of which satellite-tracking information is the most important ingredient. The baseline tracking system for these satellites is the onboard NASA retroreflector array, which serves as a target for 10 to 20 satellite laser ranging (SLR) stations that dot the Earth's surface. The CNES DORIS (Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite) system provides an important additional set of tracking data. Anchored by about 60 ground stations, the DORIS receiver measures the Doppler shift of microwave signals to support POD. NASA's experimental GPS receiver systems onboard the spacecraft provide precise, continuous tracking of the position by monitoring range and timing signals from up to 12 GPS satellites at the same time. In order to produce accurate estimates of the satellite orbital height, POD combines the satellite tracking information with accurate models of the forces (e.g., gravity, aerodynamic drag) that govern the satellite motion. For these missions, this process supports the determination of the satellite orbital height with an accuracy of about 1 centimeters (0.5 inches)".
Chek,
That only makes my point. When the earth is a pear-shaped geoid with flat spots, circulating around the theoretical "centre of the earth" doesn't get you parralel to the sea surface.
And when you get never-ending false signals for all those reasons I pointed out that have to be "adjusted" with code and assumptions, plus on top of that their altitudes have to be constantly corrected and are often found to be in error, only a doltoid [and the CSIRO] would fall for it.
Check, what is satellite measurements (tested and calibrated against the global tidal gauge records) worth compared to drongos's bald faced assertions about his king tide mark way up a river that has undergone extensive structural change.
"NASA's experimental GPS receiver systems onboard the spacecraft provide precise, continuous tracking of the position by monitoring range and timing signals from up to 12 GPS satellites"
If the earth was a perfect sphere and the sea was a sheet of glass, tracking orbits with GPS could not give you SLR to within 3.2 mm/year.
It is a statistical exercise and the signal is completely lost in the noise.
drongo trying to take shots at NASA is priceless while he's trying to measure SLR from one point up his river. Up a river!
How much better can it get?
Drongo, far from "making your point", NASA's description shows how way off base your misconceptions are.
There is no requirement or claim to be "parralel to the sea surface" as you imagine. The reference point is at the centre of the Earth's rotational axis, and the changing surface height data passing beneath the vehicle calculated from that. Not forgetting regular in-flight positional calibration and calibration against traditional surface instruments as jackerman helpfully adds.
Of course, as with any man-made device satellites can't operate flawlessly all the time, but errors are detected and corrections applied when those errors are discovered.
Just ask Spencer and Christie.
And sorry but vague, unsupported word salad claims of "statistical error" and "noise" which most likely emanate from your anti-science crank site of choice don't cut it either. Not by a long shot.
"There is no requirement or claim to be "parralel to the sea surface" as you imagine."
Then why do they try to maintain circular orbits?
Why would circular orbits be part of a requirement to measure sea surface distances.
May I point you to a new idea in maths (well, new to you):
[Pythagoras Theorem](http://www.mathsisfun.com/pythagoras.html)
When you've educated to AT LEAST the level of a 10 year old, please feel free to contribute.
Drongo, You also seem to assume that opening the channel will inevitably lead to particular changes in tidal dynamics. This is so naive as to be pathetic. For example, opening the outlet channel could decrease net resistance to outflow, causing the overall water level in the estuary to drop. If that is the case then the high tide level may well reduce, even though the tidal range might increase a little. Furthermore, water level at any point in the estuary is not determined purely by volumes and rates of inflow and outflow. Changing the inlet geometry may change the patterns of currents, that may cause localised increases and decreases in water level. For these, and may other reasons, your mark on the wall is an extraordinarily unreliable indicator.
If you don't believe this, look at how changes to estuary dynamics were simulated before computational fluid mechanics became available. Physical models were built of the estuary in question, at huge expense, to allow modelling, simply because your assumptions do not hold. Now that is not necessary (usually) because of the capabilities of computer models, though even now this is still sometimes done as an independent validation of the modelling.
Your posts display on a plate the bizarre naivety of denialists. You cherry pick a data point that "proves" your argument, and ignore all others; you fail to understand how scientifically-valid data should be collected; you mislead about the chosen datapoint); you refuse to accept any suggestion, from people who actually are scientists, about why your point is invalid; and when all is lost you then criticise valid science on the basis of ignorance (ignosring along the way the huge amount of highly technical work that has gone into analysing and understanding the errors that you describe).
You have generated a classic case study of crackpot science and denialism. For that we should all be grateful.
Drongo:
>"There is no requirement or claim to be "parralel to the sea surface" as you imagine."
>Then why do they try to maintain circular orbits?
Drongo, let me put this is the most simplistic terms I possibly can. If there's anything you don't understand, ask me what I mean.
You do NOT need the satellites to be parralel to the sea surface. This schematic (from this previously linked page) shows a nice elliptical orbit under which the sea surface height undulates, as you (well, maybe not you, but most people) would expect it to.
From that description of how sea level is measured:
>To take a measurement, the onboard altimeter bounces these pulses off the ocean surface and measures the time it takes the pulses to return to the spacecraft. This measurement, multiplied by the speed of light, gives the range from the satellite to the ocean surface. After correction for atmospheric and instrumental effects, the range measurements are accurate to less than 3 centimeters. The range measurements are subtracted from POD-derived estimates of the satellite orbital height, resulting in ocean height measurements that are good to 3 centimeters (just over 1 inch) relative to the center of the Earth.
>This accuracy figure pertains to a few-kilometer spot on the ocean surface directly beneath the satellite. By averaging the few-hundred thousand measurements collected by the satellite in the time it takes to cover the global oceans (10 days), global mean sea level can be determined with a precision of several millimeters.
So you have sea level relative to the centre of the Earth and you can work this out so long as you know how far the satellite is from the centre of the Earth.
Now, say as in that is link you get one full global dataset every 10 days. To determine whether sea level is changing, you need to do two things; firstly, ensure that your satellites are at a constant height relative to the centre of the Earth (NOT the Earth's surface), and secondly you just need to plot your datapoints and look to see if there's a trend.
Ah, Drongo, Drongo...
I know that you won't believe me, but I picked Chevron as your likely site for a number of reasons.
Firstly, in the old Bolt thread you mentioned that it was on a sand island in close proximity to a 20m deep channel. As I have in my youth spent many happy times at the Condor* (18A is a particularly special place for me) it was the first island that came to my head. And your photo gives quite a number of distinctive landmarks: it allows one to identify the relative positions of the stairs, the jetty, the layout of your fencing, the colour of your back steps and even (through the reflection in the water) the size and position of your neighbour's tree. The angle of the shadows, given that you took your photo at high tide (which on the day in question would have been between 9:00 am and 10:00 am approximately) indicates a NE aspect.
The reason I said that I was playing nicely is that I didn't want to point out on Google Earth where your sea wall was to this degree of resolution... But now that you have volunteered that information yourself (and now that it's apparent that others have been checking as well), I am reduced to shaking my head in disbelief. Well, maybe not disbelief, but I was hoping for your sake that you were at least downstream as far as Southport.
It seems that basic hydrodynamics (if such a beast can be said to exist) eludes you completely. Let me ask you one of my questions again, this time with a rephrasing of the proposition... What would happen to the level of the water in the lower reaches of the river if the bottom from around Wave Break Island, through to upstream toward Chevron Island, was filled in to its pre-dredged depth? I am speaking of the mean river level as it would be without influence of the ocean.
The effect of dredging around the mouth is particularly interesting.
Now, taking into consideration was the dredging has done to the river level (assuming that you can actually figure it out), what effect would superimposing ocean tides have on the level?
This whole river hydrodynamics thing seems to be a particular conceptual stumbling block for you, so let me ask a related series of questions, to see whether or not they might spark some understanding in your brain.
If you think that Chevron Island is a reliable site at which to assess the mean global sea level, is then Albert Park, which isn't that much further upstream, similarly reliable? And the Royal Pines? Perhaps the eponymous Nerang itself? What about Advancetown? Numinbah Valley?
Where does it start to become dicky? Why?
Why is Chevron Island not a dicky site for measuring sea level? And can you answer this last question with specific reference to it's relative height above sea level, and to data that demonstrate to how much of an impoundment effect the island is exposed? Do you have the data that show how dredging altered the impacts of storm surges, of tides, of ocean currents, and of barometric influence on sea level?
Oo, and on a completely different tack, if satellites are as poor at mapping the sea surface as you insist, how is it that they are used with considerable success at surveying topography on land? Or are cartographers, surveyors, and mi1itary forces around the world as deluded as are oceanographers? And how is it that none of the above people are able, apparently, to account for oblate spheroidity in the Earth's shape?
And final question - how do you propose that a satellite tracks an oblate spheroid as it orbits around the planet? If it's not in geosynchronous orbit the shape of its oblate trajectory would be continuously changing, would it not? Of course, if it were in geosynchronous orbit, what shape would the orbit be?
[*It's ironic - as I said above, I spent many days and evenings with my friends at the Condor, including looking out over the hinterland and into the back yards of Stanhill, and wondering who the people were who lived there year-round. I can finally wonder a little less now, it seems...]
Spangled Drongo said:
"Then why do they try to maintain circular orbits?"
They try to keep the orbits of these satellites near circular to keep the vertical velocity of the satellite (w.r.t. the ellipsoid) small. Large vertical velocities make it harder to keep track of the returning radar pulses. As it is, the vertical velocities of the TOPEX/Poseidon-type satellites go up to about +/-15 metres/second because the centre of mass of the Earth (about which the satellite orbits) is not coincident with the "geographical" centre of the Earth because of the oblateness (slight pear shape) of the Earth.
Neil White
And how do we know the earth is not a perfect sphere (which so concerns SD)?
That would be because of measurements taken by satellites.
My message 155:
Please ignore the last part - the +/- 15 metres per second vertical velocity is mainly due to the difference in shape between the nearly-circular satellite orbit and the oblate spheroid shape of the Earth. The mismatch between the centre of mass and the geographical centre of the earth is much smaller.
Too early in the morning/not enough caffeine/...
Neil White
Joni (156):
"And how do we know the earth is not a perfect sphere (which so concerns SD)?
That would be because of measurements taken by satellites."
The ellipsoidal shape of the Earth was first proposed and measured in the late 18th century. Newton was the first proponent of the oblate (flattened at the poles) shape of the Earth. One of the cues for this was different values of g at different latitudes. These values were inferred from different periods of pendulums at different latitudes. Another cue was the observed flattening of Jupiter.
The first measurements of the shape were made by French expeditions to Lapland and Peru where they carefully measured distances along the ground and the corresponding change in the orientation of the vertical relative to the distant stars.
There has been a series of improvements since then, the recent ones using data from man-made satellites.
Neil White
My message 158:
Sorry, having a few finger/brain problems this morning!
The first sentence in my first paragraph should have finished "...in the late 17th Century".
I won't say any more until I've ingested a suitable amount of caffeine.
Neil White
Drongo,
How have accounted for dam that has been built since you began measuring, and the declining flow volume in the Nerang?
http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/watershed/precomp/146002b/amp.htm
Drongo. When I actually looked at your photo on Marohasy's bog, after reading BJ's delightful pwning above, I note that the 1st Google ad read: "How will climate change affect your real estate prices?" How appropriate. Drongo: desperate AND immune to reason. Slainte
Bernard asks:
Not to mention the thing everyone in Queensland would now be familiar, floods. The idea of getting ocean level data from a place influenced by floods is just laughable. They've done a lot of work in the Nerang estuary downstream of the silly drongo's gauge since the early 1960s, including building Macintosh island. And then there are natural changes in the estuary as well. At least we can thank the drongo for confirming that science denialists are ignorant fools.
Would it surprise anyone here (bar strangled dingo) to know that Maritime Safety Queensland been dredging the Nerang River estuary since at least the 1980s and that at least 4.5million cu.m was dredged in 2 years in the mid-1980s?
No? Thought not.
I must congratulate all the doltoids here for solving the problem of SLR.
All we have to do is dredge a deep channel to the sea from any property endangered by SLR and PRESTO! Problem solved!
The SL will drop immediately!
You people are beyond help.
>You people are beyond help.
??
Have you actually read any comments written here as to why Chevron island is a crap place to try and measure a long term trend in sea level?
Some might think the actual sea would be a better place to look.
By the way, have you taken on board our explanations of how satellites actually measure sea level, so you don't have to rely on a strawman based on ignorance to conveniently ignore them?
By the way, this piece of stupidity slipped past unnoticed, but I'll dredge it up here:
>On top of this the signal is being bounced off the decks of huge amounts of shipping which gives an extremely exaggerated signal
Have you considered what % of the ocean surface is covered by the decks of boats? Have you done the mathematics to show that it is a non-negligigble percentage (say, 0.01%) is boat decks higher than the actual sea surface?
The oceans have an area about 3x10^14 m2. So 0.01% of this is 3x10^10 m2.
The USS Nimitz, a massive aircraft carrier, is about 330m long and 80m wide so being generous its area is 26400m2.
This means that there must be the equivalent of over one million USS-Nimitz sized boats sailing the worlds oceans at all times to have even close to the effect you postulate. Can you prove that there are, Drongo?
There, there, Drongo. If you shut your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and say "LaLaLaLaLa..." loudly enough, it will all be alright...at least until you try to sell. Sorry we couldn't help. Have you considered building an Ark? Slainte
Stu N (#165)
Well done for picking up this:
"On top of this the signal is being bounced off the decks of huge amounts of shipping which gives an extremely exaggerated signal"
There have been studies of this and the very small number of affected radar returns have been examined. The effect of this, as you point out, is negligible. In any case, many of these anomalous returns are rejected anyway because they are quite different in character to radar pulses bounced off the ocean.
Perhaps Spangled Drongo should get out of his river/canal/swamp/whatever and go for a trip out on the ocean and see just how empty it is out there!
In any case, this would only have an effect if the amount of shipping changed. Perhaps we should look for a GFC signal in the sea-level signal!
Also, tide gauges show similar trend in global-mean sea level over the satellite period, and they would not be affected by this.
This really is clutching at straws!
Neil White
"You people are beyond help".
[Says the man](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3175…) who estimates sea level from an inland location.
You doltoids understand radar signals like you understand SLR.
But to persevere a little further [who knows, the penny may drop with one of you]: this main river point, not far from the river mouth, regularly had king tides coming to the top of this step 48 years ago. Since then, everything that has occurred here has contributed to sea level RISE [if you don't agree please point out anything that hasn't contributed to SLR].
With the increase in high tide levels as a result of the increase in tide flow from all the dredging over the years plus the assumed SLR by satellites, SLs at this point should be 30 cms ABOVE this step, not 30 cms BELOW it.
>*if you don't agree please point out anything that hasn't contributed to SLR].*
Ummm river level, natural flow level changes and engineered changes. Not an exhaustive list of the variable the make your site non optimal, but certainly a factor that need accounting.
Rain in the outer catchment area for another.
Dumping of liquid waste by businesses.
Blockage of tributary flow by business, treefall or other impediment to river flow.
Children urinating in the river.
Cue drongo on CCTV seen taking buckets of water out of the river to show a lowering of the sea level...
:-)
Spanky Dangle, the lesson to be learned from this prolonged episode is that unresearched, off-the-top-of-your-head assumptions don't necessarily agree with what the real world does.
At least, that would be the lesson for a rational person.
You on the other hand, are reduced to imagining that you think you know how satellites work when you've shown that you haven't a clue, that the infinitesimal area of ships' decks scattered round the furthest reaches of the ocean somehow unduly influence the sea level radar return data, and that a great big, fat conspiracy is behind it all.
As if.
Chek,
You ever bounced a radar signal off anything in your life?
Ever noticed the signal difference between a steel ship and water?
And remember, a satellite is measuring the distance between itself and the sea surface in order to measure SLR.
You can mindlessly embrace 3.2 mm/year constant SLR or you can be somewhat sceptical.
Drongo said: "Ever noticed the signal difference between a steel ship and water"
I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that the finest minds in electronics have already considered how to ignore (or filter) radar returns from islands and peninsulae (which would constitute a phenominally greater area than your steel ships) when they're gathering data on sea surface height?
Maybe you should consider actually studying or at least reading up on that which you so casually dismiss with the most trivial of reasons.
You could start by being somewhat sceptical of what you think you 'know'.
Drongo.
Um, you have made an error of logic here; to wit, your version of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Of course, you have been banging on with the false dilemma of causal oversimplification for a year now, as well as indulging in incomplete comparisons, moving the goalposts, raising the bar, cherry picking, hasty generalisation, and probably a number of other fallacies of logic, but I am not going to bother thinking of more.
With a single exception. One of your favourite fallacious strategies has been argumentum ex silentio. I have over the course of the year repeatedly asked you dozens of questions (I really wish that you'd address [my comment on linearly regressing oscillating phenomena](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…)), but I will try once more to elicit an acknowledgment from you of some basic influences on riverine hydrology. To that end, are you able to address these points:
profile along the Nerang River at the time of the tide back in the 60s, compared with the GaucklerâManning coefficient
profile at the time of the "king" tide this month? (Note, this is a complex question because it implies that you will actually, for once, consider impoundment as a factor in the river's flow, and thus in its level).
If you are unable to address these questions, then for once just admit it, instead of ignoring them and banging on with utter garbage as is your usual pattern of behaviour.
Alternatively, spanked dingo, we could reverse the effects of sea level rise from land ice melt by moving all measurements of sea level rise to the upper tributaries of some rivers.
This is, after all, what you've done to state that SLR is reversing...
I suppose you'd also accept that we could make global warming reverse by using the 2010 temperatures as the baseline.
Chek,
With radar, water is background and solid objects give the signal.
If you increase sensitivity to get a strong signal from background, imagine what you get from solid objects. Then imagine what you end up with by filtering out the solid objects.
Plus all the beforementioned problems.
And we're dealing with 1/8 of an inch a year!
And you're still not sceptical?
Bernard,
This is what I mean by your esoteric waffle.
Here is a case of SLs being plainly 2 feet [60cms] lower than they should be and you are arguing over the odd centimeter plus some unknowable hydraulics in order to impress the doltoids here but you press on with this when even your spittle has given up.
It's sad to se you like this. I think you need another break at Condor.
>*With radar, water is background and solid objects give the signal.*
Not when the system is tuned to read sealevel.
>*Here is a case of SLs [river level] being plainly 2 feet [60cms] lower than they should be*
"Chek, With radar, water is background and solid objects give the signal".
Dingle, will you for God's sake stop with the pulling what you think are "facts" out of your arse. Maybe you did military service and think X band is all there is to it. Whoopee doo. Well, it isn't.
Different radar frequency bands will 'see' different states of matter such as K band used in cloud mapping water vapour to V band which can 'see' oxygen atoms, which rather rips the piss out of your ludicrous belief.
That you grimly maintain your ignorance and trumpet it to the world without pausing to think indicates a type of narcissism that's all too common this week, what with Delinpole's meltdown.
You could educate yourself (or at the very least find out, in this internet age), but I suspect you prefer not to and would rather remain an ignorant, believing, credulous sucker for the next internet iconoclast who happens by.
They can sell you exciting stories about secret plots.
Chek,
You're starting to sound like Bernard with you're in depth knowledge and ranting however this is what T/P say about their MSU:
"At the moment, we believe that we can estimate the geoid at distances as small as 600 km to a height accuracy of 20 cm. However, many bathymetry features, such as ridges, change rapidly over 600 km. This will cause large errors in the sea surface topography computed at distances smaller than 600 km. To compensate, the topography is smoothed over larger distances. Generally, these distances are even larger than 600 km. At the moment, we believe that the sea surface topography can be computed accurately over distances of about 2000 km."
It's a statistical exercise yet you swallow 1/8 of an inch a year constant SLR.
True tide gauge measurements show a fraction of that, none at all or even negative SLR.
And using GPS corrections for T/P corrections can have its problems too:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/25/2830316.htm
Here's a genuine 2 inches per century SLR in Sydney that might cheer you up:
http://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/sydney-noaa.jpg
OTOH, in the last 2000 years it has obviously dropped a few feet:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066712/Uncovered-lost-b…
Any Doltoids sceptical yet?
[Jakerman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3179…), even better is:
"I will take any lack of answer in your next post as an explicit acknowledgement that your source is rubbish, and that my point stands"
You can't score a point on the current argument so diddums has to bring in even more irrelevant esoteric waffle.
But yes, you did show me that a year ago and you may be right in the case of limited data. But so what? It's done by statisticians, not me.
For someone who claims to know my river benchmark, it's a shame you're in such denial of the fact that it has been subject to ever increasing tide flow over its lifetime which should result in higher, not lower SLs, yet in spite of this, lower SLs are what's happening.
As they do here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sine:10/from:1910/to:1940/compress:12/…
Drongo, you've been butchered: it's just that you haven't be able to comprehend that your head has been separated from your body.
And there's nothing irrelevant, esoteric, or waffly about the way in which [the trend-line in the graph to which you linked](http://i45.tinypic.com/5keqdt.jpg) was fitted. It is simply and quite frankly an invalid way to describe the trend of an oscillating phenomenon, especially where there are few periodicities, and the graph was certainly not "done by statisticians"!
You're squirming like a worm on a hook.
You're a slow learner, aren't you? Increasing tide flow into a previously more-impounded river system does not necessarily imply that water levels in the system should be higher, and in fact it would usually suggest that they should be lower. I will revisit one of my previous points on this matter:
Do you actually understand what I was getting at? If so, can you make the point in your own words, and then ennunciate the conclusion that one would draw from it?
And I'm still looking forward to answers to the questions in the rest of [that post of mine](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3173…).
Or should I just accept that your stratagem of argumentum ex silentio is essentially an implicit admission by you that everything that you say is crap?
And on the matter of your Roman beach, how is it that you believe that the rate of sea level rise must always be greater than local rates of siltation, especially in pre-Industrial times? For pity's sake Drongo, many alluvial parts of the English coastline are well recognised to have silted up and advanced seaward over the last few thousand years, and your link even acknowledges this as the reason for the burial of the Roman site.
Deductive logic isn't one of your strong points, is it?
Well, wadda ya know!
Are we sceptical yet?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/27/ban-ki-moon-un-climat…
Nah, not the Doltoids!
"Do you actually understand what I was getting at? If so, can you make the point in your own words, and then ennunciate the conclusion that one would draw from it?"
Bernard,
Please stop. You're only embarrassing yourself.
At my benchmark, at the PEAK of the 1974 floods, the current was running UPstream, showing how it was more in equilibrium with the ocean than the river. Additional dredging and the Seaway construction since then has made it more so.
What was it you used to drink when you were on the balcony of Condor?
SD tried:
As usual, when SD realises he has shown to have entered a battle of wits not only unarmed but with a sign on his back indicating where a salutary boot might be placed, he goes for misdirection. The other day it was a horse race with a runner called "global warming" in it. Today it's an article that doesn't discuss sea level rise or indeed any matter of salience for scientists pertinent to CO2 forcing. What SD would like people to contest is whether Ban Ki Moon's evaluation of the prospect of an international political agreement on measures to abate CO2 forcing tell us anything at all about AGW -- or something.
I suspect Bernard J, that that is as an explicit admission from SD that he had simply posted nonsense on SLR as you are likely to receive.
For "pity's sake" Bernard, learn something for a change.
The Roman landing was always thought to be buried under the sea because the south coast has been sinking post glacially but in spite of this it was found 2 miles inland!
Proving that SLs over the last 2000 years have been net falling [around 2 meters].
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/flood-risk-rais…
And of course in spite of all this knowledge of England sinking by the Stern [pun intended], the hysterical CAGWers haven't got the wit to realise that SLR just can't be happening or they'd be in deep doo-doo.
Now Fran-of-the-ad-hom-and-no-content, welcome to the debate.
Ad homs are fine but ya gotta have content.
SD
You continue to misuse the term "ad hom" despite my having repeatedly pointed out your error. What that does is to underline your preference for willful ignorance.
This is of a piece with your comments on SLR.
Now the italicised portion above is an example of the correct usage of ad hominem.
Drongo, every wonder why the satellite measures for SL [line up with the tidal gauge meausures](http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html)?
[Here is](http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/topex/topexfaq.html) the fully quote cited from drongo:
>Q5: How is the bathymetry of the ocean floor accounted for in the sea surface topography?
>*The bathymetry effects are removed by removing the geoid. The bathymetry (mass concentrations/holes) cause different gravity signals at the ocean surface, which cause a permanent deformation in the sea surface that is part of the geoid signal. At the moment, we believe that we can estimate the geoid at distances as small as 600 km to a height accuracy of 20 cm. However, many bathymetry features, such as ridges, change rapidly over 600 km. This will cause large errors in the sea surface topography computed at distances smaller than 600 km. To compensate, the topography is smoothed over larger distances. Generally, these distances are even larger than 600 km. At the moment, we believe that the sea surface topography can be computed accurately over distances of about 2000 km.*
The 20 cm range refers to regional bathymetry effects (which are compensated for) not global accuracy.
The accuracy of current satellite measures of SL are within [a few centimeters](http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_meas_sat_alt.html).
[Here is](http://wcrp.ipsl.jussieu.fr/Workshops/SeaLevel/Posters/3_16_Nerem.pdf) a useful poster. Showing the triangulation of gravity measures, altimetry, and the Argo floats.
@ strangled dingo
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're one of those experts who likes to make disparaging comments about the locations of terrestrial temperature sensing stations, are you not? As in "global climate change is bollocks because this, that and the other stations are next to an incinerator/ steelworks/ coal-fired power station".
Righto then. Given your laudable concern with ensuring that data from various sorts of automatic sensing stations are not corrupted (a concern I fully agree with), what would be your impartial comment on locating a tidal measuring station/ buoy at a location some way up a river, whose catchment had been significantly compomised by landfill, replacement of natural environments with canal estates, concreted "channelisation" of natural water courses, substantially increased stormwater inputs, sedimentation (resulting from inter alia the clearing of native vegetation further up the catchment), channel dredging and considerable alteration of the tidal/ riparian flow balance at and/ or upstream of that station?
Answers on a postcard to Surface Stations (cc Anthony Watts)
For fact-free Fran,
ad ho·mi·nemâ â/æd ËhÉmÉnÉm âËnÉm, Éd-/ Show Spelled
[ad hom-uh-nuhm ânem, ahd-] Show IPA
âadjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
For off-the-planet-Janet,
Do you think the software that analyses those millions of bits of data may have to contain some assumptions?
Assumptions aren't very scientific.
Are they stevie?
SD
My description @192 above of your attempted misdirection was simply a description of your actual conduct viz. your failure to respond to BernardJ's argument and your attempt to divert into a discussion of Ban Ki Moon.
That was not "attacking your character" or "appealing to prejudices, emotion etc". I was outlining and highlighting your tactics. So, not ad hominem, according to your chosen definition.
In any event, it is not merely the short phrase ad hominem we are discussing. The discussion concerns argumenta ad hominem which class of arguments seek to adduce an attribute of the person against (and occasionally in favour) of propositions advanced by them.
If for example, someone says -- Is this another idea you've got from FAT AL?, as you have, then this cites Al Gore's alleged body type as a reason for discounting his claims. That's an ad hominem argument. One might argue that a politician should be supported because he/she was a fitness fanatic or a woman and that too would be an argumentum ad hominem.
The term is not a synonym for vituperation and even though most attributional claims a re derogatry in practice, it's the connection to the integrity of claims that the whole phrase describes.
Ad hominem arguments aren't always fallacious either. Pointing out that a person has a financial or personal interest in making a claim is legitimate, whether the claim happens to be true or not.
Spangled Drongo
I know this is a long shot, but if you would like to actually inform yourself about satellite altimeter measurements of sea level a good starting point would be ESA's radar altimeter tutorial..
When you've finished that you could get hold of a copy of
Altimetry and Earth Sciences by Fu and Cazenave. Just the first chapter (~122 pages) should be enough for now. The chapters on ocean tides and sea-level change would be helpful too!
By the way, the stuff about smoothing geoids etc is irrelevant. Because we haven't had good knowledge of the detail of the geoid in the past (it is getting better!) satellite altimeter missions like TOPEX/Poseidon etc repeat the same ground track (to within +/- 1 kilometre), so you get a time series of differences at the same points on the ocean without "contamination" from the geoid slopes. The trends at these points are independent of the shape of the geoid, as are the estimates of global-mean sea level. You don't need to know the gravity field, the geoid, or the mean dynamic topography well to estimate time series of sea-surface height at a point or collection of points. You DO need to know the geoid slope to estimate the (spatial) slope of the sea-surface height.
Going back to one of your earlier points, echoes from hard surfaces like ice and metal ships are much stronger than the echoes from ocean, which makes it very easy to edit them out. Believe it or not, the people who design, build and operate these missions work very hard at getting the best, most accurate data from them. Also, objects like ships only take up a very small part of the radar footprint (typically 5-10 km diameter) and any anomalous returns are in the noise.
Neil White
PS Please calm down!
>Assumptions aren't very scientific.
>Are they stevie?
On the contrary, whole fields of science cannot be done without making assumptions. How do you not know this? What's the highest level you've studied science at?
For example, the Navier-Stokes equations which describe fluid motion do not have defined solutions in most applicable situations. So how the heck do we use them? Various scientific assumptions are made to get the equations into solvable form. One such assumption is that there is no flow at the boundary between a fluid and a solid (called the no-slip condition). Do you take issue with this condition? What would you propose scientists do instead?
There are so many assumptions in all areas of science that one wonders how we manage to make aeroplanes fly or get the LHC to fire protons etc etc. Luckily assumptions aren't randomly chosen just to make life easier - they are part of the scientific process.
Drongo, the more you type, the more you reveal yourself to be hopelessly ignorant.
Neil White,
Does it ever occur to you that these satellite measurements don't fluctuate? They just keep going up at the same rate.
Do you really believe that SLs only do that?
S/N,
Your assumptions about assumptions are very questionable.
It depends a lot on your basic level of scientific understanding.
To make ssumptions from a position of understanding and confidence is one thing. Doing it from a position of ignorance or low level of understanding is dangerous and stupid.
But the main reason you try not to assume is to prevent any form of bias or inaccuracy. Because assumptions are always based on what you [the experimenter] believe. And ya know what? you're wrong more than you're right.
Even you must know that.
Drongo's attempt to cast aspersions of the assumptions of others and their scientific understanding are once again priceless.
This is from the guy who can't see the difference between river level and sea level. And the same guy who thinks that one point up a river disproves sea level rise.
Just a few unsupported assumptions there drongo, compounded by drongo's anti-science method.
Janet-from-another-planet,
You'll have to watch it!
You're becoming more fact-free than Fran.
>Does it ever occur to you that these satellite measurements don't fluctuate? They just keep going up at the same rate.
>Do you really believe that SLs only do that?
Here's a commonly posted graph of satellite measurements of sea level: http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/mean-sea-level-rise.gif
Looks like it does fluctuates plenty, and that's after the seasonal cycle and variations due to pressure are removed.
>To make ssumptions (sic) from a position of understanding and confidence is one thing. Doing it from a position of ignorance or low level of understanding is dangerous and stupid.
Shall we have a look at a couple of assumptions you've made?
>On top of this the signal is being bounced off the decks of huge amounts of shipping which gives an extremely exaggerated signal.
This statement assumes two things: i) that shipping produces enough of an anomalous signal to affect satellite estimates of sea level, and ii) that the scientists studying sea level rise can't spot and correct the 'extremely exaggerated signal' that 'huge amounts of shipping' gives.
Turns out the data is run through an algorithm that detects and flags suspect data. As such, if shipping did have the effect Drongo suggests, all data where a ship is within the radar path would be rejected. Not to mention my previous comments where I did a back of the envelope refutation of the idea that shipping covers enough of the ocean to have an effect...
So, when Drongo blurts out that shipping causes 'an extremely exaggerated signal', just assuming that it does so and also just assuming that no-one would correct for that or any other extremely exaggerated signal, it would be accurate to say that he is
>doing it from a position of ignorance or low level of understanding
and therefore
>is dangerous and stupid.
Yet another fact free comment from drongo. No surprises, just more projection.
Drongo, while were here, can you answer this simple question? Do you understand the difference between sea level and river level?
jakerman, give him some credit, he's getting closer. SD's first data point is 7 kms from the ocean. After nearly 200 posts in this thread he offers a second data point, which is only 4 kms up an estuary. A few more and he might actually say something relevant to sea level.
SD suggests that because the old Roman port of Richborough is now 3 kms as the crow flies from the sea, sea level must be rising. In fact, it was always back from the sea, up an estuary that silted up in the 17th century. And despite the fact that SL is rising (and Kent is sinking) it hasn't flooded because it was built on a 15m high hill (which is now about only about 14 meters above sea level).
I respected his tenacity in clinging to his losing point. But now its all just tedious abuse and Gish Gallop. The fail was fun for a while, but now SD's just another Sunspot. *Yawn*
SD is only talking about his "see" level.
Janet,
You just can't seem to understand that tidal estuarine river level is more accurate than the ocean for producing SL data. This is generally where tide gauges are kept to provide accurate measurement.
S/N,
Who are you trying to convince? Me or you?
Well, given that I have actually checked my facts, you.
Spanky Dongle - I've already warned you once.
Now keeping both hands well away from your arse, please explain the logic underlying that conclusion in your phrase: "You just can't seem to understand that tidal estuarine river level is more accurate than the ocean for producing SL data".
(God, this thread gets more like the Python's cheese shop every day).
Spangled Drongo, #210
You said:
"Janet,
You just can't seem to understand that tidal estuarine river level is more accurate than the ocean for producing SL data. This is generally where tide gauges are kept to provide accurate measurement."
Wrong again! The reason tide gauges were placed in estuaries, rivers, harbours etc is because people need to know the local sea level - e.g. to know whether they can get a ship with a draught of x metres into or out of the harbour. Yes, they're good for measuring local sea level, but inevitably miss a lot of the oceanic signals.
If you want to know what is happening to the total volume of the ocean (a.k.a. global-mean sea level) then, obviously, a system (e.g. satellite altimeters) that measures sea level over the whole ocean must be better. And, yes, the satellite altimeters agree well with a global network of high quality tide gauges. A lot of work has been done on this.
This is my last posting on this "discussion" as it is clearly a waste of time trying to answer your questions. My final bit of futility is to suggest again that you actually inform youself and stop making a bloody idiot of yourself. This book: Understanding Sea-level rise and variability would help.
Goodbye
Neil White
Drongo, a simple question you cannot seem to answer:
>*Do you understand the difference between sea level and river level?*
Those properly using Estuary flood gauges understand the difference. Which is why they, unlike you account for river flow (hence the term flooding).
Your lack of accounting for river flow variation has been pointed out to you many many times. Yet you seem immune to this fact.
Which is why I ask the simple question:
>*Do you understand the difference between sea level and river level?*
Neil, only a waste of time for the evidence challenged Drongo.
I, and I assume many others, have appreciated you sharing your knowledge.
Thanks.
"The reason tide gauges were placed in estuaries, rivers, harbours etc is because people need to know the local sea level - e.g. to know whether they can get a ship with a draught of x metres into or out of the harbour."
Neil and chek,
You are so out of your depth.
Apologies for the pun but you two are so humourlessly dumb.
The reason tide gauges are placed in estuaries is because the influence of wind surge, surf and other forces at work on exposed oceans drown the signal so maximum stilling is required.
The thought of using a tide gauge to navigate a ship into harbour just shows your lack of understanding.
You would use existing soundings plus your own soundings plus tide PREDICTIONS from the tide chart.
Off-the-Planet-Janet,
So we're on to "flood" gauges now?
How do they come into it?
You obviously have even less conception of what we're discussing than Neil and chek.
More evidence free assertions from Drongo. No surprises there. Neil set you straight.
BTW drongo, the estuary flood gauges are the gauges measuring the water level in estuaries.
So drongo, for the 3rd or 4th time:
>*do you know the difference between sea level and river level?*
I laughed so much that I cried.
Drongo, it's time to come clean. Besides living on the Nerang River 8 km (that's 5 miles in Imperial) upstream from the mouth, what actual experience or formal education in hydrology or oceanography do you have? Sure, tell us about how many prawns you've threaded onto hooks, and what the make of outboard is that you run on your tinnie, but other than that, what structured experience do you have?
Erm, most tide gauges are placed as close to open ocean as is practicable, usually just behind a breakwater, so that the influence of river hydrodynamics does not drown the oceanic signal. Hydrographers are well aware of both oceanic and riverine confounders, and features to minimise wave action are built into the gauge design. If you're not acquainted with the design (including stilling chambers) and operation of a tide gauge, [this is as good a place to start](http://www.icsm.gov.au/icsm/SP9/tide-gauges.html) as any. For criteria for site selection, [see here](http://www.icsm.gov.au/icsm/SP9/links/PCTMSLsiteselection.html). Read all of the points carefully, because they make a mockery of your version of the science.
One thing that hydrographers would not do is locate a tide gauge 8 km upstream from a river's mouth.
Neil White, to second jakerman's comments, your input has been much appreciated by others here besides Drongo. Please don't feel that it is a futile exercise - as much as Drongo will never be able to learn anything that contradicts his ideology, no matter how solid the scientific foundation, there are still many lurkers here who do learn from informed input, and the thread will serve as a future demonstration of the counters to bloody-minded ignorance.
Janet,
It's hard to believe that after all this discussion you still don't get it. Please read this slowly:
1/ high tides in estuaries are lower than high tides in the ocean because of channel restrictions and
2/ any dredging or widening of these channels raises the estuary level and
3/ any flooding that happens raises the estuary level.
Now what has happened here is that in spite of the above, SLs have fallen in this estuary.
In order for that to happen progressively over nearly half a century, SLs in the ocean must have fallen.
Drongo, simple question (for at least the 4th time):
>*do you know the difference between sea level and river level?*
Why are you avoiding such a simple question?
BTW for any late to the party drongo hasn't even measured the average water level on his river wall, he is only described comparing current river peaks to a peak river level way back.
Bernard,
I thought you said you knew the area?
Any idea where the present tide gauge is located?
No?
Why am I not surprised?
BTW, the mouth of the Nerang emties into the Broadwater upstream of the GC Bridge.
Know where that is?
2k [not 8k] from my benchmark.
And are you suggesting that dredging and widening have not changed the hydraulics to provide higher high tides in the estuary?
Because of your complete ignorance you've even stopped your esoteric waffling. [I suppose that's something]
Now you're just plain waffling.
chek: I don't think it's Python's cheese shop...more the Black Knight. Drongo is completely unable to conceive of anything outside his personal experience. However thanks to all those who tried, I have learned a lot from the patient, reasonable and erudite, if futile, attempts to penetrate his fallacies. Slainte
"do you know the difference between sea level and river level?"
Janet,is this a trick question?
Until you supply more specifics the simple answer is that one is in the sea and the other is in the river but here, where they are closely connected with a tidal, progressively expanding, shipping channel and the river-flow is only trickle-fed with environmental flows, there is not much difference except to say that high tides at sea will always be slightly higher because the estuary will never achieve equilibrium with the sea during the short period of high tide.
"BTW for any late to the party drongo hasn't even measured the average water level on his river wall, he is only described comparing current river peaks to a peak river level way back."
What has MSL got to do with it or is that also more hand-waving because you have run out of argument?
So drongo, you say your river is only trickle fed. Is that true, and has it been constantly so? Where is your data on the flow rates for the dates in question?
You also have not provided evience that the only change from the enginering works is to increase the tidal sensitivity. For example, increaing the sea flow in also changes the contribution of river flow rise to your river wall level over the period in question
drong asks:
>*What has MSL got to do with it or is that also more hand-waving because you have run out of argument?*
The MSL just happens to be the measure of GSL measure, and is the measure you've been claiming to challenge.
Interesting that you've not known that for x months you claimed to know better than NASA and CSIRO on these matters.
Wow, drongo is still droning on about this.
It's utterly pointless to try and reason with someone who thinks that their recollection of where the tide came up to on a wall 40 years ago disproves global satellite measurements.
Drongo: "It's just a flesh wound"..."
Arthur (aka BJ, JA, NW & chek): "Your a loony!"
(limbless) Drongo: "Come back here you yellow bastards! I'll bite your legs off!"
So Drongo says:
For those readers who might not be familiar with the geography of the Gold Coast waterways, it's interesting to see how Drongo is redefining concepts with desperate recourse to semantics rather than to anything remotely resembling scientific sense.
The "Broadwater" is simply the lowest reach of the Nerang River before it enters the Pacific Ocean. The [common](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Coast_Broadwater) [delineation](http://www.australianexplorer.com/broadwater.htm) of the Broadwater is northward from Southport, although such a delineation is as semantic as Drongo's attempt to claim that it starts at the Gold Coast Bridge. The fact is that the Broadwater is contiguous with the Nerang River, and both (as far as they really exist as separate identies) lie behind the narrow mouth to the ocean east of Labrador/Biggera Waters.
For the pedantic, it is 3.4 km from the downstream end of Chevron Island to the offical commencement of the Broadwater at the Southport/Main Beach line. It is 2.4 km from Chevron Island to the first point at which the Nerang River actually widens to any significant distance, although this has no bearing on whether the river has actually ceased to be a river. It is 7.85 km (approximately) from Chevron Island to the mouth, at the point where the river is no longer bounded by land.
For those who appreciate a visual depiction of such a description, [I have obliged with this image](http://i56.tinypic.com/b88jme.jpg). Note how the Broadwater is not actually anything remotely resembling open ocean...
Drongo, the whole point of my discussion of your site and its position with respect to the open ocean is that there are many riverine/estuarine features that confound the normal oceanic tidal movement seen beyond the hydrological milieau of rivers. My points remain as firm as ever, and all that you have done is to demonstrate how desperately you are attempting to shift deck chairs in an attempt to pretend that you have any credibility.
You say:
which is a bizarre invertion of what I have been saying all along, which is that dredging, widening, and other channel works have most certainly changed the nature of tides in the river/estuary. How these changes manifest is not a simple matter to explain without detailed data from multiple points along the river and over time, but [this brief summary of characteristics of estuarine hydrology](http://www.dnr.nsw.gov.au/estuaries/factsheets/physical/tidal-behaviour…) might help to inform:
Does this sound familiar? Shallowing and narrowing of waterways can, if other hydrological characteristics are conducive, amplify tidal heights - think of Fundy, or the Severn... Conversely, deeping and widening of waterways can reduce this amplification effect.
And note: although I am not exactly sure of the geological history of the Nerang River, "mature barrier estuar[y] and... drowned river valley estuar[y]" both seem to describe aspects of its character.
This is probably more esoteric waffle to you, but it's also grounded in fact, rather than in your wishful thinking. Of course, if you are so sure of your correctness in this, why don't you contact the print, radio and television media and spread your story far and wide? I would suggest that you actually publish in peer-review your proof that sea levels are in fact decreasing, but I suspect that you'd protest that you would be censored...
Marohasy though must be so proud of herself for having posted your refutation of sea level rise. I'm sure that it has raised her scientific credibility inestimably.
"And note: although I am not exactly sure of the geological history of the Nerang River, "mature barrier estuar[y] and... drowned river valley estuar[y]" both seem to describe aspects of its character."
Bernard, I'll go along with that!
The Nerang estuary is neither of those. It is relatively young and was very dynamic until the Seaway was built.
And your knowledge of the Southport Broadwater is also woeful. Prior to 1893 when Jumpinpin was cut through the old Southport Bar [now the seaway] was the entrance for the Albert and Logan Rivers, the Coomera River [N&S], the Pimpama River and the Nerang River [plus numerous creeks]. Since 1893 it has been the entrance [but not the mouth] for the last three [or four]{plus numerous creeks}.
The mouth of the Nerang R since white settlement has always been at the northern end of Paradise Waters [MacIntosh Is].
A century or two prior to that the mouth was possibly where 1st Avenue Broadbeach is in which case my benchmark would possibly have been in the ocean or Broadwater.
To suggest that the Nerang estuary is comparable with the Severn or the Bay of Fundy where estuary tides have an amplifying effect is deliberate distortion and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Those places have a 2 metre Tidal Wave on a daily basis!
Talk sense!
That link of yours to estuarine tide graphs shows exactly what I have been trying to tell you about the tides at my benchmark.
@230: Comprehension's not your strong suit, is it?
BJ:
>Drongo, it's time to come clean. Besides living on the Nerang River 8 km (that's 5 miles in Imperial) upstream from the mouth
Drongo:
>*the mouth of the Nerang emties into the Broadwater upstream of the GC Bridge. Know where that is? 2k [not 8k] from my benchmark.*
BJ:
http://i56.tinypic.com/b88jme.jpg
Drongo:
>[Chirp, Chirp..look over there!]
Spangled Drongo (#217)
I'm afraid I can't just stand back and watch this bizarre "train wreck in slow motion".
Firstly, you say:
"The reason tide gauges are placed in estuaries is because the influence of wind surge, surf and other forces at work on exposed oceans drown the signal so maximum stilling is required."
This is rubbish. The influence of wind surge is generally more pronounced near a coast (because it has an obstacle to pile up against). Surf is a coastal phenomenon - there is no surf in the open ocean (yes, there are breaking waves, but no surf as such). Coastal/estuarine tide gauges need stilling wells to damp out the local effects. Tide gauges are placed where they are placed because someone needs to know the local sea level for some purpose (e.g. navigation). In recent decades a number of gauges have been installed for scientific projects and they try to sense oceanic conditions. They are usually placed as near to the open ocean as possible - NOT in estuaries.
"The thought of using a tide gauge to navigate a ship into harbour just shows your lack of understanding."
Rubbish again. Any competent Harbour Master or Harbour operations team will know when the local (predicted) high tides are from one day to the next within minutes, and also have a good knowledge of the bathymetry of their harbour. They will have little real-time handle on meteorological effects, so judgement, supported by the readings from the local tide gauge, will be the final arbiter if there is any doubt.
"You would use existing soundings plus your own soundings plus tide PREDICTIONS from the tide chart."
And where do you think the "PREDICTIONS from the tide chart" come from? I'll give you a clue - it has something to do with the data from the local tide gauge. And how do they allow for local meteorological effects?
Neil White
This report makes interesting reading - seeing that it specifically talks about Broadwater and the period that SD is referring to.
"Prior to 1985, The Broadwater drained to the ocean through the Southport Bar. The Gold Coast Seaway was constructed during 1984 and 1985 and the bar was finally closed in mid 1985. The development was finalised in early 1986.
It is known that the development of the Gold Coast Seaway resulted in a change in both the time and range of the tide. (Department of Harbours and Marine 1986, 1987, and 1988).
The impact of the changes on the tidal predictions for The Broadwater is illustrated by the non-tidal residuals at the Runaway Bay tidal station for the observations of 23 January to 4 March 1979. The predictions used to prepare Figure 7 are based on an analysis of the 1979 observations. These predictions fit the observations well. On the other hand the non-residuals depicted in figure 8 were prepared using predictions constituents based on observations from 1987 â a year after the Seaway development was finalised. These latter residuals are poor â illustrating that at least the time of tide had changed. Examination of the tidal constituent constants based on the 1979 and 1987 observations revealed both a change of range and time. The tidal regime at Runaway Bay had changed as a result of the change in the waterway between it and the open sea."
http://www.icsm.gov.au/icsm/tides/doco/Port_Tidal_Predictions-V0.4.pdf
Neil White,
Do you know where tide gauges are placed?
Have you ever navigated a deep draught vessel anywhere?
Have you any idea how many tide prediction points there are compared with tide gauges? Tide gauges are not needed for tide predictions.
Yes joni, the seaway changed the tides as did the dredging and channel widening. So?
The level of understanding on this blog is so low that after a week of discussions we haven't made any headway. In spite of all the dredging and channel widening you lot are still stuck hard and fast. I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave you to your fate.
Drongo, more hand waving and [chirping crickets](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3184…).
I look forward for your list of sea level tidal gauges that are like yours 8km up a river.
Drongo, please read carefully what I said, and what you actually quoted - to wit:
I was simply attempting to describe some of the physical hydrological characteristics of the lower Nerang - the actual history is almost irrelevant to the fact that is does indeed present aspects that resemble both a drowned river and a barrier estuary. The point here is hydrodynamical, not historical.
Fishing for red herrings much?
Again, Drongo, what matters here isn't the history before your 1960s tide level, but what was exant at the time of said tide, and at the time last year and this year when you claimed that sea levels had fallen. Therefore the breaching of Jumpinpin on the old Stradbroke Island is not directly relevant to what happened during your observations in the 60s. What is relevant though is that in the 60s there was far more sand in the river (or estuary if that shakes your tree), and that there has been an enormous amount of channel-work since the 60s.
As to where you define the "mouth"of the Nerang River, I will repeat again for the hard-of-learning - you are referring to a semantic definition. You can call the northern end of MacIntosh Island "the mouth", but in terms of tidal effects what matters is where your "sea wall" is with respect to the seaway, which is currently the real mouth of the river/estuarine system with respect to the Pacific Ocean.
Seriously, are you trying to tell everyone that the Nerang/Broadwater system is open ocean right up to Paradise Waters?!
Drongo, Drongo, Drongo...
I thought that even you would understand that I was referring to the "amplifying effect", as you yourself pointed out. Read again [my statement](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3184…):
I said nothing about magnitude of the tides; only that particluar channel-forms can amplify tides, and that, by implication, alterations of said channel-forms can alter these amplifications.
Oh?
Do explain. Using science, if possible. You know - that thing that has been universally absent from your efforts for a year now.
To the thread in general...
Am I being somehow vague in my points, that Drongo is not able to grasp that the history of change in the Nerang/Broadwater system affects the tidal regime, and that his childish interpretation of sea level rise is utter bunkum?
Am I missing some essential point of explanation that fails to illustrate the fact that what matters is not Drongo's definition of the where the Nerang's "mouth" is, but where the actual entrance to the ocean is?
Are there any other shortcomings in (what I thought were) my simple explanations of Drongo's deficient "science"?
I can't believe that anyone could really be this dense unless they are pathologically welded to an ideology that exists in a universe separate to the laws of physics, but just in case I am not being clear in any aspect of my argument, I would dearly love to know where I might improve my explanation.
Oh, and Drongo, as [you have now conceded](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3179…) that [your link to a linear trend fitted to an oscillating phenomenon is garbage](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…), will you now retract any and all conclusions that you might draw from a reliance on said garbage?
Bernard J @238: the answers to your general questions are no, no and no (in that order).
Following on from Sir Paul Nurse on Horizon last week, it looks like the BBC might have another documentary worth watching - [Meet the Climate Sceptics](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y5j3v) by Rupert Murray. It looks like Monckton features very prominently:
Murray's previous work includes The End of the Line about overfishing, and so I don't think he will be very sympathetic towards Monckton et al.
Bernard J @238 - There's nothing wrong with your explanations as far as I can see, BJ.
As has become clear, SD breaks into a Gish dallop of other semi-related topics about which he knows equally little when pressed.
On the other hand, we might all be legitimately accused of being loonies for bothering to argue with a person who measures sea level 5 miles inland :)
As ever, the benefit from following threads such as this comes from those who actually do know what they're talking about and freely share their expertise with the rest of us, for which I'm thankful.
Bernard you've done a nice, clear, understandable exposition of the facts and the issues. Just this once I'm grateful to sd for provoking and prolonging discussion.
Spangled Drongo
In #235 you say:
"Do you know where tide gauges are placed?"
Yes, many of them are in harbours. You can see the list of gauges used for Australian tide predictions at the NTC web site. Better still, you could get hold of a copy of the Australian National Tide Tables and read the explanations of how they do things. The shop where the local yachties buy charts etc would be able to sell you one - or your local library might have one.
"Have you ever navigated a deep draught vessel anywhere?"
No. Have you? I have spent some time at sea. More importantly (as an example) when we were negotiating to put a tide gauge in Burnie Harbour (Tasmania) for one of our projects, having a real-time display of the local tide height was a high priority for them. I think you will find that any working harbour would see having a good local measurement of sea level as being important.
"Have you any idea how many tide prediction points there are compared with tide gauges?"
You can predict the tides at as many points as you want. That doesn't mean that the predictions will be any good, especially a long way away from the data points (tide gauges) that drive the predictions. Do you know anything at all about tides? Reading the introductory sections of the Tide Tables would help you here.
"Tide gauges are not needed for tide predictions."
This is breathtaking, even by your standard. Any tide prediction scheme will be driven by tide gauge data, or constituents derived from that data. OK, some tide models are driven by satellite altimeter data, but the principle is the same, isn't it? Where do you get this strange idea?
"Yes joni, the seaway changed the tides as did the dredging and channel widening. So?"
No comment (not addressed to me).
"The level of understanding on this blog is so low that after a week of discussions we haven't made any headway. In spite of all the dredging and channel widening you lot are still stuck hard and fast. I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave you to your fate."
No comment.
Neil White
Good grief, Neil & Bernard, I think you may have broken him ("I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave you to your fate."). I (and I suspect every one of the participants & lurkers on the thread, save Drongo) thank you muchly. Slainte.
Do you know what's depressing about journalists at the moment?
Despite the knee-jerk hateraide for CRU because they didn't bend over backwards to accede to any and all FOI requests, for [some FOIA refusals](http://www.desmogblog.com/groups-file-appeal-over-state-department%E2%8…) they remain strangely silent.
> (God, this thread gets more like the Python's cheese shop every day).
Although The Black Knight is closer still, I think the Book of British Birds (Unexpurgated version, with the Gannet) is closer to spanked dangle's hilarious yet still tedious ravings.
Before I finally depart, in case you may all be concerned that your contributions may have fallen on barren water, so to speak, I will make a detailed submission to the Waterways Authority listing all the cutting edge science that has been unearthed by the Doltoids over the last week in effect, that to overcome any SLR in estuarine areas, all that needs to be done to reduce SLs is to create a bigger and better access to the ocean.
I'm sure they will adopt this process right away.
It's a pity you all can't benefit financially from this great idea as well but I will always be grateful.
And don't think it hasn't been fun.
I've got a hundred bucks that says you won't.
SD
Why not submit your results to them if you are so confident that you are right?
Drongo's picked up bat and ball and gone home?
The I.Q. of the thread just increased by 50 points.
Oh, and Drongo, is there a particular reason why you avoided the questions at [#154](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3173…)? I was really looking forward to your input at that point, and most especially to this:
Rephrased in another way, at what point between the Seaway and Numinbah Valley does sea level measurement of the sort that you do become unreliable, and why?
And I know that you will continue to read this thread, even if you've grown too bashful to post any more. If you don't want to play here, I might even visit your thread at Marohasy's and invite you and your comrades back here to tease out answers to some of these hanging questions.
Oh, it's been "fun" alright, but not in the way that you're thinking. Yes, it's been fun...
And sad.
[Predictable, however](http://i56.tinypic.com/2r7x9nq.jpg)...
Now the Telegraph is going after BBC and Sir Paul Nurse, surprise, surprise.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8290469…
Drongo: "I will make a detailed submission to the Waterways Authority listing all the cutting edge science that has been unearthed by the Doltoids over the last week"
Can't even get that right, eh? You see there is no cutting edge science. The lessons you have been taught have been known for a century or more. They are just boring, mundane things that most scientists take for granted. It shows your level of utter, excrutiating ignorance that you believe otherwise. But of course you will never be able to understand this.
Good news from Britain: 83% of Brits view AGW as current or imminent threat
And a big hello to my favourite engineer mechanic.
"...to overcome any SLR in estuarine areas, all that needs to be done to reduce SLs is to create a bigger and better access to the ocean."
It certainly can be a way to reduce river levels.
Lenny [that is](http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/attachment/factsheet_dredging.pdf) gold.
Any comments drongo? I mean would you like to reconsider some of your claims?
drongo @220:
Quick. drongo, the Gold Coast City Council(@255) is wrong. Better make your detailed submission to them as well.
Just received a graph of official tide levels for the Southport Broadwater. The break in data is a change in gauge positions but it looks like high tides have dropped a foot in the last 11 years.
Wadda ya know!
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_6005a_SLI.pdf
Try this:
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_6005a_SLI.pdf
Try [this](http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_6005a_SLI.pdf)
>*it looks like high tides have dropped a foot in the last 11 years.*
Work that out by eye did you drongo? Didn't you ask for the data to go with it? We'd then be able to compare the average over the period and the trend, to get over the eye bias.
Then we'd need to match this in with the GMSL that you claim your data debunks.
[Jakerman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3192…).
I have those data myself, although they're on a computer at a friend's house, where I worked on it at the time. I will have to download when next I'm there, so that I can do some proper analyses with them.
When we obtained the data we were explicitly warned about drawing any firm conclusions from them because they were raw, and not corrected for confounders, which (in the Gold Coasts case at least) would include impacts such as the effects of dredging in the estuary. At the time that I analysed them I focussed only on the high summer months because that is when Drongo has made his "observations", and even though they're raw [the data do not tell the story than Drongo imagines](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#co…).
Eyeballing [Drongo's current link](http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_6005a_SLI.pdf) it's quite obvious that high tides have not "dropped a foot in the last 11 years". Although I don't have the raw data to check, I digitised the last contiguous segment with Engauge and regressed the resulting coordinates. And guess what...?
The coefficient of y was 0.0029 (m), which means that there was, according to the admittedly rough approximation arising from digitisation, a trend over the 11 years of 2.9mm increase per annum. Coincidentally, this is consistent with what all the professional sources tell us, even though this gauge isn't in the best of locations.
Now, I'd rather believe the more refined analysis that the hydrographers at BoM could do on cleaned data, but even using this rough and ready method it is quite clear that Drongo is blowing it from out of his arse - to use the technical term.
I have to say, I never imagined that Drongo would return with a claim of a one foot decrease in 11 years, and present data that he trusts, that actually roundly contradicts him and in fact confirms what all of the experts have been saying for years.
I think that [there is a term for that](http://i52.tinypic.com/n69f6v.jpg).
> I have to say, I never imagined that Drongo would return with a claim of a one foot decrease in 11 years, and present data that he trusts, that actually roundly contradicts him and in fact confirms what all of the experts have been saying for years.
He's merely following one of the Saints of the Church Of Denial: Monckton would NEVER let the fact that a link disproves him from putting a link up to *appear* as if he has real data. Denidiots won't check and he's preaching to the converted.
I've been racking my brain trying to think how Drongo arrived at "a foot in the last 11 years", and the only way that I can see is that he has picked the highest point in the last contiguous maximum SL section, and the most recent point on it, and connected the two.
Drongo, if this is how you do your "observing", it cements your status as the idiot that your rants for the last year have shown you to be.
Cyclone Yasi has now been upgraded to a Cat 5 (!!) cyclone <8-O
I just wanted to wish anyone on here who lives in its predicted path in FNQ (no matter who you are or what your views on climate change) the very best of luck for the next few days.
Stay safe people.
That's a monster storm, and looks like taking a similar track to Larry.
Queensland must really feel like it's being lined up for target practice. I hope that decisive action is taken to keep people safe.
BTW, how full is lake Eyre at the moment? It could fill a lot more if this short term forecast (based on the GFS) is correct: http://wxmaps.org/pix/prec7.html
>*That's a monster storm, and looks like taking a similar track to Larry.*
We might have seen our last Banna at less that 10/kg for a this season.
>We might have seen our last Banna at less that 10/kg for a this season.
What an incoherent sentence, though at least I can understand what you mean :-P
Yep, my bad.
;)
Yes, but much of the stuff on Cyclone Yasi is just the results of socialist computer modelling and alarmist chicken little scaremongering designed to get more money for greenies in their worship of Gaia, who have forgotten that scepticism is the soul of science. Personally, I'd say everyone who is a true sceptic should make no assumptions and assume that it could all be wrong because as everyone knows its snowing somewhere right now and Kevin Rudd predicted nothing but drought and anyway Al Gore has a really large carbon footprint and this is all about getting more taxes for third world dictators.
Just thought I'd get that off my chest ...
Hey Drongo.
You're an expert on sea levels.
What do you think that Yasi will do to the sea level in the Innisfail-Ingham region over the next 24 hours?
FLASHBACK...Less snow in U.S is due to Global Warming and we must act now!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d70iXVN5EVM&feature=player_embedded#
Noted that a climate-related threat has popped up in the top 5 most active on the sidebar, a post by Coby Beck on EG Beck. Standard debunking we've all seen too many times no doubt, but the comments are something else to behold. 450 comments pretty much all by or arguing with one utter moron called Richard Wakefield. Anyone come across him before? He looks like Coby's very own Curtin or Girma, only less well informed.
Nice to know other blogs occasionally get a nasty and difficult to get rid of case of the stupids. Coby should do what Tim does and make a Richard Wakefield thread. We haven't heard from spotty in a while, what a relief.
Stu N,
RW is a prolific Canadian crank who has managed to get himself kicked off quite a number of blogs over the years, including The Oil Drum and DeSmogBlog.
He has not improved with time.
The latest terrible news to emerge from the Amazon, from an article in *Science* (Lewis et al.) published in the latest issue. Thus far it has been picked up by very few media outlets.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/special-report-catastrophic-d…
The massive drought that hit the Amazon basin in 2005 was considered at the time to be a 'Once in a century' event; now we learn that an even worse drought occurred in 2010, a trend that is fully in line with the predictions of climate change models. Just as the number of crippling and exeptional heat waves is also increasing.
Watch the deniers either downplay this or try and put their own spin on it....
> Just as the number of crippling and exeptional heat waves is also increasing.
And just as you can tell that the tide is coming in because more of the waves are getting high up the beach. Yet you can't say that any specific wave getting as high up the beach as it did was caused by the tide coming in.
[Jeff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3212…).
Denialists are saying that the current precipitation and flooding in Australia is simply an example of the wide fluctuations that has always characterised our climate. Stuart Franks is one such person who has popped up again recently to spread this notion - he's prophesying decades of extremes from starting now, which basically takes care of any manifestations of global warming for another generations at least. It's convenient, but it fails to recognise that such extremes are not occurring just in Australia - they are global in distribution, and there is much evidence in the abiotic and the biotic record to suggest that the biosphere is not adapted to this degree of variability.
That the drought in the Amazon coincides with our floods shouldn't surprise anyone, as even [that side of South America is tied to the Southern Oscillation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation#South_Am…). Someone tapped me on the shoulder a little while ago to tell me that Sunspot bagged me on his thread for claiming that there is an AGW component in the flooding of south Queensland, but I stand by my statement... what we are observing in recent years is entirely consistent with the early stages of the results of human interference with the planet's climate, and rather less consistent with the idea that the planet is just having a bit of random noise in its climate.
It seems that the Denialati have all bases covered - even evidence of global warming is evidence that there is no global warming.
Andrew Weaver is taking Tim Ball all the way to the supreme court of BC:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/04/Climate.pdf
lord_sidcup:
Tim Ball had it coming.
* * *
In other news, the Heartland Institute has decided to delete freedom away my comments to their essays. Behold:
http://www.webcitation.org/5wEqtRi3n http://www.webcitation.org/5wFgqCbSK
http://www.webcitation.org/5wFhipPVA
No doubt it's all in the name of "free speech" and "anti-censorship".
I've been having some fun over at catallaxy today.
After some banter along the usual lines, I put the following question:
At this stage, not a single one of the team has come up with anything like a plausible answer, and one of them cried off on the basis that it just lead to arguments and anyway nothing anyone thought would make a difference. (Interesting position for an advocate of the power of individuals!)
One of them tried to invent a new branch of physics:
He said dissipate but he really meant disappear I'm wondering whether Harry Potter's term, disapparate might not have served him best of all.
A question for the Internets:
Dear Internets, what can you tell us about this non-profit group called Proven Men Ministries, a.k.a. 1 Way Out of Pornography?
(a bit more background here: http://ijish.livejournal.com/31662.html )
[Frank](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3220…).
"Bootstraps" is a euphemism I've not heard before...
Bernard J @ 275
Stuart Franks should be called Dr Nostradamus. This from The Age
"He said the current La Nina cycle, which began during the New South Wales storms in 2007, could continue for the next 10 to 30 years."
The denialati are falling over themselves to claim that the current weather is nothing unusual. Again from Franks
"Franks rejected the idea that category-5 cyclone Yasi was unprecedented. He said cyclone Mahina in north Queensland in 1899 was stronger"
Franks is obviously not big on evidence based science. Prior to satellites, measuring cyclones was pretty much a hit and miss affair. Franks assertion that [Mahina](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahina_Cyclone_of_1899) was as big as contemporary reports claim has been challenged by Jonathan Nott from JCU.
The challenge for the denialists is to find that historical event that involved flooding from Qld to Victoria, followed by a cat 5 cyclone, more flooding in Victoria, bushfires in eastern Victoria and a record heatwave in Sydney all in the space of a month.
Actually, there may be a way of getting a proxy population marker for CC in Australia. I'll have a look at heat stroke admissions/deaths vs total admissions, and get back to you. I think Tony McMichael at ANU published on this a few years ago. Slainte
Jeff Harvey.
You won't be surprised to discover that [Scientific Amercian has the same high calibre of scientifically-illiterate fools](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=amazon-drought-spurs-g…) as we have here on Deltoid. Page 2 is where I join the spat.
It makes me weep for the world.
Bernard,
Fantastic ripostes to 'Carlyle'. I could not have responded in remotely as much clarity as you have done. Its certainly hard to be patient with those who parade their ignorance so openly in public on forums, whilst thinking that they understand all of the subtle complexities and nuances of the fields they so routinely mangle. Anyone who thinks that an increase in atmsopheric C02 should turn the Amazon into a 'block of wood' seriously has a head made of some similar construct. The concept of temporal thresholds in C02 absorption amongst Amazon biomass does not occur in the minds of these D-K disciples, and they have no comprehension of ecological or evolutionary history in determining the adaptive rate by which plants native to this biome can absorb extra C02. The effects of Arctic warming on Polar Bear demographics tells a similar story: a small reduction in pack ice would probably be beneficial to the bears to a certain point, beyond which further loss of ice will be catastrophic. At the same time, the bears deviated morphologically from their terrestrial cousins tens of thousands of years ago, yet the anti-AGW pundits somehow think there is some phylogenetic lag which will enable them to adapt to a terrestrial (forest) lifestyle in the space of 50 years. The crux of the matter is that nature is characterized by non-linear cause-and-effect realtionships. Alter the properties of a system and things might change gradually until some threshold is reached and then they will shift dramatically to exhibit other properties (e.g. the concept of 'tipping points'). This is what we know from systems ecology and why the denialists are deluded for the most part by their profound ignorance. It also explains why they carry out their disinformation campaigns aimed at public consumption and not at scientists, who know of their egregious errors.
I recall with little fondness the same kind of bilge with respect to atmsopheric C02 concentrations, primary productivity and ecosystem functions with the 'usual suspects' on Deltoid some time ago. Comic level book stuff on their part, but they actually believed what they wrote and were vehement about it. The problem is that one only needs to understand a little to think they understand a lot. This Carlyle character is one such example.
@ 283 Bernard J
I've come to the conclusion that the rabid deniers are the gift that keeps giving. Anyone visiting Scientific American and comparing rational thought to the posts there will come away very worried at the level of delusional mendacity displayed there. It may explain why there has been no shift in the UK and US on what is causing climate change (man) or the fact that it's happening, with the schkeptikkz stuck at the fringe of opinion despite the harsh winter and email hack (despite what Fixed News says). Perhaps they also read about Australia drowning on one side while it burns on the other, the staggering NOAA montage of the Northern Hemisphere covered in snow, and join some dots? The schkeptikkz should hope that normal and rational people don't pay a visit to Climate Etc and witness the breakdown of reason currently going on there over Gavin Schmidt's email.
J Bowers,
An excellent post.
What we have to remember is that the deniers, for the msot part, don't give a s*&* about science but are abusing science as a tool in promotion of a brazenly political agenda (one generally aimed at ensuring that a small percentage of the world's population considers to monopolize and plunder most of the planet's natural capital). I'd give them more slack if they were at least honest about this. But, with few exceptions, they aren't. And they never will be. The planet will go to hell in a handbasket before they'll budge.
Apologies to Jeff Harvey. My #285 comment was in answer to your #283. So, apologies to Bernard J, too. Thanks to Jeff, as well.
Ugh :/ Scratch that last #287. Too distracted, sorry.
Bernard J.:
> > Dear Internets, what can you tell us about this non-profit group called Proven Men Ministries, a.k.a. 1 Way Out of Pornography?
> "Bootstraps" is a euphemism I've not heard before...
I'm not sure it was meant as a euphemism. :) Anyway, my question still stands... :|
Frank.
I'm sure that it was meant as a euphemism.
Really! :-)
Meanwhile, and on a much more serious subject, the [Arctic sea ice extent is looking to set a new NH record low](http://i55.tinypic.com/15qq9nk.jpg). The next month or so will be very interesting to watch.
>*The next month or so will be very interesting to watch.*
You mean interesting to watch the two-faced weather watchers look away.
Bernard, there will not necessarily be a new record. See here
I would guess the NSIDC show 06-07 for comparison not because it was the lowest at all times (Feb 2006 was lowest, not 2007) but because it shows the lead-up to the lowest min on record. Anyway, the JAXA page shows more years and 2011 isn't quite the record lowest.
Stu N.
Yeah, I should have been more explicit and included the 2006 trajectory too. My bad.
Personally, I that it's probably actually too early to say that 2011 might manage to outstrip 2006 for the winter maximum, even though it's teasing, but I am curious to see how it goes against the 2007 data, and especially against all of the monthly records between now and the next NH summer.
The awful thing is, the more it drops, the more I feel sick to my stomach.
The Sun wished our planet a Happy Valentine's Day with the biggest solar flare (an X2.2 event) of Solar Cycle 24. There was also a full halo Coronal Mass Ejection associated with this. The solar flux index hit a new Cycle 24 record high of 113 and this is the biggest indication yet that the deep solar minimum is over.
http://www.solarcycle24.com/?bcsi_scan_A4C9E8056B19D97F=0
Oh, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy!
Here is your [solar flare link.](http://www.solarcycle24.com/?bcsi_scan_A4C9E8056B19D97F=0)
Has [this activity](http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/10/lobbyists-chamberleaks/#) any link to those John Mashey is investigating?
>*a law firm representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the big business trade association representing ExxonMobil, AIG, and other major international corporations, is working with set of âprivate securityâ companies and lobbying firms to undermine their political opponents, including ThinkProgress, with a surreptitious sabotage campaign.*
Hey blogers, you can serach your profile [here](http://climatechange.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/profiler?PROJID=3&…) to see how active you've been. I think the +/- tone might relate to CCS.
Jackerman, you beat me to it. Needless to say, the similarities between the strategy outlined in these powerpoint presentations and the CRU hack approach to smearing Realclimate scientists and other prominent scientists are uncanny. The litany of capabilities profound. Their cost cheap, not least in the context of the resources of trillion dollar industries.
Quite clearly this means that anyone and everyone deemed a threat, no matter how minor, should be served notice, Mashey included.
It is difficult to overstate how significant is this revelation. A significance only superceded by the relative non-event it has registered in the mainstream media. In any case, out worst fears and suspicions have been realized.
Heads up on a couple of Green Functions in Sydney that some at Deltoid might like to attend.
1. Gasland movie â examines the problems in the US associated with Coal Seam Gas, fracking etc â¦
Date/Time: 1PM Saturday 5 March 2011
Venue: Boronia Grove, 49 Rawson St Epping (opposite Coles and adjacent to car Park)
RSVP: epping@nsw.greens.org.au or simply turn up.
Cate Faerman, Greens MLC will be in attendance to answer questions on issues related to CSG harvest in NSW.
2. Climate Solutions Forum â examines the problems in the US associated with Coal Seam Gas, fracking etc â¦
Date/Time: 2PM Saturday 12 March 2011
Venue: Shepherds Bay Community Centre, 3 Bay Drive, Meadowbank
RSVP: ryde@nsw.greens.org.au or simply turn up.
Speakers:Mark Diesendorf, Deputy Director Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW, David Shoebridge Greens MLC
Ignore ... this is a test ...
Just to see if ordered lists format predictably at Deltoid
I haven't seen any coverage (other than gloating from the usual suspects) about Penny Sackett's resignation from her role as Chief Scientist:
http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011/02/an-announcement-from-the-chief…
The press release doesn't really say too much and, in my view, is more telling for what it doesn't say.
Regardless, the decision for someone of her stature to resign halfway through her appointed term is not good. From her public comments to date, it seems pretty clear that she is disappointed at the lack of progress in addressing climate change. Perhaps she was a little naive in possibly thinking that a mandate (in the 2007 elections at least) and the urgency of the problem would over-ride political process or the efforts of the special interest groups who wish to preserve the status quo. I would have thought she would have been better placed to influence things in her role, rather than taking the high road (although I don't blame her for doing so).
All in all, it's a very sad day, particularly for those of us who understand/accept the science underpinning climate change and can appreciate what the future holds in store for us. It basically means, in my view, that she holds no hope that either the current government (or the alternative) is ever going to do anything meaningful to address climate change. For Labor, it's all smoke and mirrors stuff and not even very good smoke and mirrors stuff at that - the only ones they seem to be fooling are themselves.
Hopefully I'm wrong and she just received a better job offer....
Apparently The Australian will publish anyone as long as you deny global warming and hate the ABC.
If you fit the two into a single opinion piece you're destined for publication.
Apropos of Sir John Beddington's exhortations to climate scientists to stop being so tolerant of misrepresentation, Gavin Schmidt has gone on the offensive.
Judith Curry decides to wade straight into the mire with a post on Hiding the Decline (yes, that decline) and promptly shoots herself in the foot by flinging accusations of dishonesty at Mann, Briffa, Jones "et al" (implying, presumaly, other members of the RC crew).
Gavin Schmidt calls Curry on this, saying:
Go Gavin. Perhaps one of the few occasions it's worth swallowing your distaste and dipping a foot into the Curry denier chum tank...
Forget Curry, she blogs a load of nonsense.
This is looking interesting:
Yay! Killfile is working with Firefox 4.0b11/Greasemonkey.
And if you like it let the author know:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/fans/4107