You only have to look at the graph below showing sea level rise since 1880 to see that it has accelerated from about 1mm/year at the end of the 19th century to about 3mm/year at present.(from CSIRO).
If you take a closer look at recent sea level rise you’ll see that it has been very consistent, only deviating from the trend line by about 10mm at any time.
So if you were unscrupulous, and wanted to try to make it look like sea level rise had decelerated what could you do? You could split the series at a point where sea level was above the trend line and compare trends before and after. this is what Klaus-Eckart Puls did (green line added by me):
Of course, you could achieve the opposite effect by splitting at a point in time where sea level was below the trend line. Note that the trend for the first half, 3.5mm/year isn’t significantly different from the overall trend and that the latest measurement lies on the trend fitted to the first part of the data (the green line above).
Naturally, Andrew Bolt was taken in, claiming that sea level rise was slowing, oblivious to the fact that this contradicted his earlier claims that sea level had stopped rising.
- Log in to post comments
"their main problem seems to be erosion…
…which is also a predicted consequence of SLR"
Give up Lothe, you haven't got a clue. Erosion on those little islands is mainly due to overpopulation. But it is a never ending occurrence that nature can repair if you can give it space. They can't.
A rather beautiful map of the contours of the ocean-
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter10/Images/Fig…
You can zoom in to areas of interest.
Shows a height difference of 3 metres between Antarctica and the Kuroshio current. Note the currents are parallel to the contours.
The oceanographer Eugenie Lisitzin drew a similar one in 1965, before the age of satellites, which was a pretty remarkable achievement.
Can you give an example of 'arguing academic semantics' as I don't understand what you are driving at in relation to Lotharsson's comments.
We'd gathered that, but if you paid attention to what he has to say you could become a lot better informed.
Which qualified experts, and what were they saying? Are you seriously referring to a rather notorious Newsweek article as being written by an expert? The general view amongst scientists at the time was that, after a possible cooling period, the climate would get warmer.
Calculate the extra amount of water lost by evaporation when the temperature goes up by a degree C, then calculate the effect of a similar temperature change on a column of water 3,500m deep (the average ocean depth). What is the overall effect? Feel free to ignore any extra rainfall resulting from the increased evaporation.
No, darling, that wasn't your argument. You're desperately shifting the goalposts again.
Your line was roughly that "no-one here has made any 'obs' to support their position". That's obviously cretinous as many other 'obs' exist and are valid even if no-one here personally made them.
And it's even more idiotic than that - as you yourself personally relied on some other 'obs' earlier in the thread to support one of your embedded claims, only to (a) ignore the fact that the very same 'obs' refuted your main conclusion even after that was pointed out to you and (b) fall back to arguing that only personally made 'obs' are valid.
I take it you like the ritual intellectual humiliation you get here? It would explain a lot.
Surprise surprise! - Spangly did not watch the video. Because this would lead to the pain of cognitive dissonance.
And, wow, erosion - how did that happen? Christ, the Festival of Thick never stops...
And, what, you're implying that they don't want it researched because it's not actually happening? Pffft!... You can read from your own link, I gather, he asked sarcastically because, let's face it, you may be able to, but you didn't bother, did you?
Gee, that sounds unlikely! Nope, cover-up for sure!
More bloody information for those capable of taking it in. Notice how it corroborates that the locals distrust the government's motives in all this, but they don't doubt for a moment that the oceans are rising?
BFPM, here we have a classic example of the locals who actually experience the effects of SLR not being in any doubt about its reality.
You wanted effects, here are effects.
I predict, however, that you'll keep hiding behind Spangly because you have no more desire to know anything undesirable than he does... So you can steal a march on your useful idiot, and tell us all why the locals perversely didn't bother to put their fresh-water supply out of the reach of these recent king tides if they are, in fact, precedented? Or their cemeteries, for that matter?
And another quiz question - when seas have risen half-a-metre or a full metre, as raised at the end of the lateline video I've linked to, where do you reckon the New Guinea lowlanders are going to attempt to flee to?
And will you have the decency to feel ashamed when it happens?
You know that joke that ends with the Grizzly Bear putting its arm around his would-be shooter and saying "c'mon, now - you're not really here for the hunting, are you?" ;-)
Oh, the irony.
Didn't say otherwise. ("Mainly due to one thing" does not mean "another thing has zero effect".) But I was pointing out that you incidentally brought up a point that certainly applies in a number of places.
Similarly, reports of fresh water estuaries and groundwater supplies near the coast suffering from increasing salinity which appears to be due to sea level rise, and near-coastal farmland suffering from salinity due to more frequent/more severe seawater flooding are also relevant. (Tuvalu's agriculture and groundwater supply are particularly affected. Other factors are contributing as well - but local sea level rises are also a major factor. Then there's Kiribati which is having similar problems. Similar effects will be felt wherever there are coastal regions that are similarly vulnerable. Bangladesh is particularly worried, and advanced Western nations are not immune either.)
BFPM might like to pay attention to those effects as he's obviously having trouble comprehending the other effects of sea level rise that have previously been pointed out.
Well we've been down that path many times Lothe. But to spell it all out again...
I am sceptical of someone telling me something world-changing is happening if I cannot verify it. Not only that but also see and experience the opposite happening.
And many others who are very hands-on and involved on a daily basis with SLs support my observations with their own observations.
And the Doltoids who personally see nothing themselves and have never bothered to look are the ones that are trying to convince me because they believe what someone else is telling them.
Unnerstan now Lothe?
"Oh, the irony."
Yes Lothe, especially when again you haven't a clue.
If it is overpopulation that is preventing these Islands from operating as they normally would, don't blame it on something else to suit your argument.
And we've been down the road of pointing out that you accept the data that shows it is happening, but only when you feel the need to use it to support your argument, and then deny the data when shown that it refutes your overarching claim.
And we've been down the road of you arguing globally averaged changes aren't happening because local conditions don't match the global averages.
And we've been down the road, speaking of which:
...of you citing one factor that contributes as "proof", PROOF I TELL YOU, that other factors have zero impact.
Your case remains bullshit, no matter how many times you repeat it and hope it will magically transubstantiate. So I must conclude you're not really here for the hunting.
Talk about the living incarnation of 'blinkered'! Why bother with all the fancy-pants research when we have the old blokes down the sailing club bar?
You are even dumber than Lothe, bill. Even that video and Tony J don't claim SLR as the problem.
Their problem is deckspace, not freeboard. Like so many island communities they, like climate scientists, have their hands and mouths open for money but like you two, the truth is not in them.
Go and give 'em your money, not mine.
Perhaps we've found the core motivation for SD's blatant denialism.
Ritual intellectual humiliation?
Seriously?
You use such terminology yet you can't figure out what is meant by 'aggressively seeks equilibrium' or 'arguing academic semantics'?
The mind boggles :-)
And Bill,
Where did anybody (other than you) say we shouldn't bother with the fancy-pants research?
I also noted a a few back that you seem to think I'm fat (overfed) and I'm out to destroy the planet.
What gives you that notion Bill?
Can you quantify that statement please?
I could eat less than you and be thinner than you and use less resources than you and even maybe live somewhere that uses better and more sustainable practices than wherever you live.
I could even be carbon neutral.
How would you know Bill?
Maybe you need to cross your fingers behind your back before you make such amazing leaps of logic?
Bingo. And here we have the nasty old bigot!
Duff, meet your Antipodean counterpart...
And watch the frickin' video again, you old fool...
And more! Here's the freakin' transcript, you arrogant nong! You really cannot take in information that you don't want to know, can you?
Rarely do we get to see such a spectacular auto-depantsing in public. You really ain't here for the hunting!...
And now to -
In case you hadn't noticed the buffoon you're championing thinks he and a handful of his cronies know more than the CSIRO. Not to mention the BoM, NASA, NOAA, and every other mere research authority. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, he thinks the actually qualified and trained scientists at the CSIRO are 'in it for the money'.
This means that you are a fellow-traveller of the worst kind of yokel Dunning-Krugerite conspiracy theorist!
And that's 'overfed' as in affluent, smug, self-satisfied and complacent, Chammy; re-read your own posts.
It's SD's term and he relies on it so he gets to define it. What part of this is too hard for you to understand?
Don't be silly.
It means you want to brush some inconvenient problem with your claim under the carpet by arguing that it's not significant enough in the real world to bother with...in other words you are falling back to asserting your claim rather than substantiating it.
"It’s SD’s term and he relies on it so he gets to define it. What part of this is too hard for you to understand?"
The part where it's SD's fault not ours.
If it's our fault, then this idiot can continue to claim us wrong. And that's a problem for them.
"Like so many island communities they, like climate scientists, have their hands and mouths open for money"
So you agree that New York State shouldn't get any money for the damage done by Sandy, right?
And farmers shouldn't get any help either.
Nobody should get any help from government.
Right?
"I am sceptical of someone telling me something world-changing is happening if I cannot verify it."
You know that you will need to do the work to verify it.
Now, have you sampled enough of the records shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#Australian_sea-leve…
to verify it?
If you don't trust the data, then you've been EXTREMELY lax because you should have been looking at this for the past 40 years. AGW was pretty much the thing from the 70's, its effect concluded scientifically in the 1956 paper from Callendar.
You can verify it.
You just don't want to.
"I didn’t make any claims."
Then what was all that writing?
"does that mean you deny that water and gravity have a very strong and overriding physical relationship that causes water to aggressively seek equilibrium?"
YES.
"are you actually saying that king tide flooding is an indicator of SLR?."
YES.
"The whole effing city including the coastal engineers and scientists."
Given that the coastal engineers and scientists have seen it, then are you saying it does exist? Or is it that most of the city's inhabitants haven't (because they haven't looked) that it doesn't?
Or are you not making a claim?
"If it is overpopulation that is preventing these Islands from operating as they normally would,"
Have you observed this as the case?
Because Rhyl in Wales (the UK is an island) isn't having a problem with overpopulation causing flooding or water problems. Therefore it isn't happening anywhere either.
If overpopulation is causing such problems on islands, why isn't it happening in Rhyl?
Bill, there nothing in that script that mentions SLR. And on top of that it was a cyclone surge. You are a joke.
This was doctored up for the ABC idiots and it looks like they found their mark.
Now if you want to address the problem of overpopulation of these islands you might retrieve some cred.
But they like CSIRO, BoM, NASA, NOAA etc all know where that nipple is and how to make the milk flow.
And did I touch on a raw nerve when I tried to get between an ideologue and someone else's money?
Beautiful plan of ocean contours
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter10/Images/Fig…
The oceanographer Eugenie Lisitzin produced a similar one in 1965. She did it without satellite data - an amazing achievement.
" there nothing in that script that mentions SLR. And on top of that it was a cyclone surge."
Yup, on top of Sea Level, WHICH INCLUDES ANY SLR, there was a cyclone surge.
Well done.
You still don't know that you know, because you're unwilling to acknowledge it (it's devastating to your case). But you DO know.
It's amazing what prizes are being handed out by the dummies.
But like SLR, the Doltoids don't think these payments should ever be audited.
http://www.solomonstarnews.com/news/national/16832-2m-pay-out-queried
"It’s amazing what prizes are being handed out by the dummies."
And still you hand out prizes for us!
Gee, keep going, you ridiculous old fool!
And, Chammy - who doesn't approve of Alan Jones - and the pseudo-reasonable man with the ridiculously antagonistic moniker, this is your champion? Just another mean-spirited, cranky old blowhard? What does that say about you?
And talking of demanding handouts and "spend your money, not mine":
http://chamber.350.org/2011/04/how-to-get-government-handouts-for-oil-c…
It's your shift now is it Wowsie? please lift your game to even the lowest level of common sense.
HAHAHAHAHA!
You're a hoot, spankers! Whining about common sense lacking when you have not a smidgeon of it (or at the very least allow no such compunction to get in the way of your crusade against reality)!
Truly, you fake caring about some other country's taxpayers when money is spent on preventing disaster but didn't go through all the "proper channels" and then resoundingly don't care about other taxpayers (and your country will be doing the same welfare handout to the profitable oil companies too) paying money out to help some of the most profitable companies on the planet!
Raise my game?
Given your head is permanently jammed up your arse, the entire world appears upside-down to you.
I see that we can add "liar" to "fool".
You might as well save yourself further humiliation and sod off now, Spangly, because there is no way back from your performance above.
I had a suspicion that if I mentioned the Torres Strait Islands the bigotry that lies at the very heart of Australian 'conservatism' would most-likely reveal itself - what I wasn't expecting was the veneer of civilization to fall away so swiftly and utterly, and for it to be vomited out in such appalling gobs.
What a humiliating and truly appalling performance. Shame on you, and shame on anyone who now tries to defend you.
Leave.
So bill, when erosion, king tides and cyclones that have always happened there, and have acually done the damage yet they claim some event that is very topical but untrue to be the cause, simply because they know it is a great milking cow, you think that if you are stupid enough to believe them you also have the right to give them my money?
Well I know that is what's going on in the climate madness of today's world run by idiots like you but guess what? you're fast running out of rope and it will jerk you up so short it'll make your eyes pop..
You've lost the argument, little man. Best advice would be to toddle along; but by all means, hang around and make yourself - and your cause - look just that bit more ridiculous.
And, so, now we come to the violent fantasies, too! You people are all the same. Toxic.
"So bill, when erosion, king tides and cyclones that have always happened there"
Is no proof that SLR doesn't exist.
Sandy is the result of AGW. AGW is real. It is happening.
Deal with it.
...you’re fast running out of rope and it will jerk you up so short it’ll make your eyes pop..
Nah! Drongo. You are the 'Ooh Me Goolie Bird', having just hit the dirt. That classic ideological mantra gives you away.
Drat!
Nah! Drongo. You are the ‘Ooh Me Goolie Bird’, having just hit the dirt. That classic ideological mantra gives you away.
It's funny how the past 15 years have all been "you're about to be proven wrong!!!!" from the deniers.
Every single year, there's been "Cooling any day now".
Every single year, it's been "Everyone is leaving, they know it's a scam!".
And every year they get ready to do it all again.
Insanity: doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different result.
Truly, these morons are like pinky and the brain. "What will we do tonight, brain?" "The same thing we do every night, pinky. Try to prove AGW wrong".
I really shouldn't wind you up Wow,
But a quick scan through this thread seems to show that Wow is the repetetive one who keeps making the same mistake ovef & over again.
No one is claiming AGW is wrong!
You are the one who keeps saying that.
Considering the MO appears to be that you answer each others questions:
Are you sure you meant to say YES to my question to Lotharsson?
Lotharsson went to great lengths to not answer that question and chose to give an entirely wishy washy answer to my question to David B instead.
Are you certain you deny there is a strong physical relationship between water and gravity?
Maybe you misread the question?
And please do point out where everyone is saying that AGW is wrong.
"No one is claiming AGW is wrong!"
Yes there is. Are you doing a bolt now?
"Are you sure you meant to say YES to my question to Lotharsson?"
YES.
"Lotharsson went to great lengths to not answer that question "
I doubt it.
But haven't you seen Joan's epic (literally!) attempts to avoid any answers to questions for SEVERAL YEARS???
You have the most remarkable simple comprehension problem of anyone I've ever seen turn up here.
'We never said it wasn't warming!' The last-resort strategic mantra of the Denier tribe when confronted by the latest batch of irrefutable evidence.
To be shortly followed by BAU; 'it's all a scam' 'it's actually cooling', and, for the truly idiotic, 'CO2 is a harmless trace-gas / plant food and can't cause warming.'
Nobody who hopes to maintain any shred of scientific respectability can maintain the latter in public, but this egregious, anti-scientific fatuity is widely indulged and never seriously challenged; unsurprisingly, as it's actually the infantile rejectionist position of the majority of the 'skeptic' community.
If you haven't managed to see it here - try the comments by the ludicrous Olaus on the Open Thread, for example - I can only repeat that you have a truly jaw-dropping comprehension problem.
But, in case you haven't notice you're here running with the pack that holds that despite the fact we know the oceans are rising, they're not rising. Which clearly makes you a science rejectionist, too.
What silly dishonest games you play, Chameleon (so apt a moniker for a lukedenier).
and
are not consistent. And since "other influences" are always operating, the SL is never constant over the globe ... this is a permanent, not temporary, situation.
And
is a ridiculous strawman ... no one denies that gravity keeps the water on the crust, rather than drifting somewhere over our heads. The issue is whether the SL is everywhere the same, and the fact is that it isn't ... making SD wrong and the two of you clowns.
Are you certain you deny there is a strong physical relationship between water and gravity?
Gravity is an extremely weak force, that acts on all mass equally.
Sorry, given the necessity to spell everything out s l o w l y and in block letters, Olaus' latest fatuity is actually on this thread.
This, translated into thinking-people-speak, amounts to 'despite the clear - and statistically significant - downward trend in NH snow-cover over the last few decades I've neurally-outsourced the 'thoughts' of some idiot on a Denier blog somewhere - this is the process we refer to as "chumming" - who has pointed to the (not significant) minor uptick in December snow cover (and, note; we are not talking volume here); hence, no warming!'
This is followed by a style of hooting and capering that would embarrass a Victorian era chimpanzee tea party.
Wow,
please show me where anyone other than you at this thread has stated that AGW is wrong.
As for your question about Joan. I have not seen a pist from someone called Joan at this thread.
And Bill,
you must live on a different planet where there are no large bodies of water that stay below the atmosphere or when you drop something it doesn't fall down.
Maybe water naturally runs uphill where you live and maybe there is no moon on your planet that dictates tides by it's gravitational influences?
Did it possibly occur to you that without the overriding forces of Earth's gravity and water's physical response to that there would be no oceans and no atmosphere.
We all know that other forces can temporarily interfere with that very basic rule, but which force does water obey at the end of any temporary influences?
If it's obstructed it will go sideways until it either breaks through or finds a new downwards path. If it is pumped we can make it go uphill until the influence of that pump has reached its limit and it immediately defaults to gravity. If a large body of water is subjected to strong winds it can be blown uphill but will immediately and aggressively return to equilibrium dictated by gravity.
Hydro power works very successfully based on this very well known relationship between water and gravity as does successful irrigation schemes as well as simple tank sytems, sewerage systems, urban water supllies etcetera.
You comment about gravity being a very weak force is highly questionable.
Especially in relation to planet Earth.
Sorry,
my apologies Bill,
that comment is for ianam.
"Maybe water naturally runs uphill where you live"
Nope.
But you've been ridiculous ever since you started here, champers.
Go on, show where Bill said the water flowed uphill on his planet.
You're just a timewasting idiot.
Gravity is by far the weakest of the fundamental forces, Chammy. Most of us with any kind of science background already know that.
Obfuscations aside, the simple point that Ianam made is irrefutable - or not able to be credibly refuted:
As we have pointed out, over and over. The billiard table hypothesis is not debatable - it is wrong.
Again, why do you find yourself a science denier?
"my apologies Bill,"
Your apology should be for your arrogance and idiocy here on this thread, chammy.
I note that you fail EVER to think. All you do is bitch, moan and complain.
Stop flapping your gums (metaphorically speaking) and stop to listen for a while.
"Again, why do you find yourself a science denier?"
They don't know any better, bill.
This REALLY IS as smart as they can get. Any more is just simply beyond them.
Rubbish Bill,
without gravity your photons and electrons wouldn't exist in the form they exist and they would inter relate in a different manner entirely in the natural world.
The issue was about the physical relationship between water and gravity and so was the very simple question.
chammy.
question.
is it impossible for a bucket of water to remain in the bucket if it's turned upside down?
after all, your and spanking donkeys here insist that if sea level rise isn't everywhere then it can't exist because "it aggressively seeks a level" and it "doesn't run up hill".
So that would mean that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for an inverted bucket of water to retain the contents, right?
"without gravity your photons and electrons wouldn’t exist in the form they exist "
No, they'd work just fine without gravity.
"they would inter relate in a different manner entirely in the natural world."
Electrons don't get affected by an electric field because they are in a gravitational field, champers.
Where on earth are you getting your pretend physics from? Creationist sites?
"The issue was about the physical relationship between water and gravity"
That's the fifth change in the demand.
How about you find one and stick to it.
Or is the problem that you don't understand physics and what your problem with sea levels being different is?
"But nonetheless, gravity is the major influence when it comes to water levels."
What do you mean by "influence"?
Is gravity using marketing techniques on water molecules to make it lie down?
WHICH question? If you want to be understood and want to be a responsible participant you often need to be more specific. Many of your statements here are highly ambiguous. For example, even that quote can be understood as addressed to Wow (via context) or addressed to me (by name).
Which two questions?
You forget, cham isn't saying anything, so that they can avoid being called out on saying something incorrect.
Indeed cham has never said anything.
Though they have used a lot of time and typing to do it.
chameleon --- No, I did not take evaporation into account. Average thermal expansion only depends upon the volume and average depth of the oceans. In actuality local thermal expansion depends upon local equivalents but the boundary conditions are too messy for me. Similarly for evaporation (which anyway depends more on wind speed than on temperature).
Are you certain you can define "strong physical relationship" with sufficient precision to make it a meaningful scientific question? That is a prerequisite of any attempts by you to draw quantitative inferences from the answer.
I note that you haven't yet asked SD to define his Billiard Table Principle in sufficient detail that it can be used to draw quantitative inferences either. Similarly you apparently haven't bothered to understand my reasons for rejecting SD's claims about global sea level - some of which were on a quantitative basis. One almost gets the impression you are unable and unwilling to - perhaps because you know you can't refute them.
1) There's no interference. Water molecules, like ALL mass, respond at all times to all forces that act upon them. Calling other forces "interference" is a sign of unscientific thinking.
2) On earth, there's no end to your "interference".
Your argument is that if gravity were the only force acting, then water molecules in the ocean would fall into a nice neat arrangement that presumably you reckon supports SD's "Billiard Table" metaphor. (And that only works to the extent that you ignore the gravitational effect of the moon.) The question is an interesting hypothetical, but we're not talking hypotheticals. We're talking the earth and all the gravitational and non-gravitational forces acting upon the oceans - and we haven't even got started on temperature gradients, currents, and large scale oscillations yet...
I know. That's why I'm making more of an effort to get her to specify what she means.
My money's on that one ;-)
Wow,
You're moving into the realms of ridiculous and theoretical for some inexplicable reason.
The answer to your question is of course it's possible because there is an impenetrable physical barrier (the bucket) which can be held in place by surface tension on a perfectly level impenetrable surface that the force of GRAVITY plays an important role.
Too bad if that surface is not level however. That bleeding obvious (but apparently weak) physical relationship between water and gravity will defeat you and the water will quite agressively run out.
What happens however when you remove the bucket and let the normal & natural forces take their course?
Does the water keep the shape of your bucket Wow or does gravity take over immediately and aggressively?
Furthermore,
It is all very interesting to look at what other forces will do apart from from gravity and I have no problem with that.
However, if we are studying the real world and modelling the real world then, forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious (as boring as that might be), but gravity needs to be IN the modelling not out.
It is indeed an OVER RIDING influence on all things (very clearly including water) in the natural world.
Water does indeed reset very aggressively to the forces of gravity when other temporary influences like storm surges etc are removed.
Or as Spangled D commented, it aggressively seeks equilibrium.
So if that is now sufficiently explained Wow (and perhaps Bill? )
Do you still deny that there is a very strong and over riding relationship between bodies of water and gravity?
Did you calculate your coefficient from measured sea levels? If so, doesn't that take (past) evaporation into account? Of course the evaporation rate could change in the future - but only to the extent that additional water can be stored somewhere outside of the oceans.
Remember, cham's statement it wants confirmed or denied is
“does that mean you deny that water and gravity have a very strong and overriding physical relationship that causes water to aggressively seek equilibrium?”
"The answer to your question is of course ..."
That is ridiculous, cham.
The question I asked is:
is it impossible for a bucket of water to remain in the bucket if it’s turned upside down?
Your response says nothing about being upside down.
Or are you claiming the surface tension of water can hold it in the inverted bucket?
Are you SURE you're not a nutter?
BTW Lotharsson,
Wow's question re 'influence' is a classic example of trying to play academic semantics.
At least you're better at it than he is as you showed by your last comment :-)
But in any case Wow & Lotharsson.....
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Very, very, very boring and a complete waste of time.
You will successfully turn this thread to the right again if you keep it up.
"Wow’s question re ‘influence’ is a classic example of trying to play academic semantics."
And your response is classic avoidance.
I guess you don't want to say what you mean by influence.
Is that because you don't know how gravity works?
"Very, very, very boring and a complete waste of time."
Yes, you were told this AGES ago.
Yet you still continue to say nothing and take a HELL of a lot of words to do it.
"It is indeed an OVER RIDING influence on all things (very clearly including water) in the natural world."
WRONG.
See: birds.
Only a prize idiot would claim that ANYONE on this thread rejects gravity's influence on water.
You are that prize idiot.
You might want to ponder your idiocy and refine your thoughts a bit before you type them in.
Or not.
"It is all very interesting to look at what other forces will do apart from from gravity and I have no problem with that."
Oh you most definitely do.
You ignore them entirely.
Lotharsson --- I don't recall all the details; the calculation is somewhere back on this never ending thread.
It wouldn't matter. H2O is a fraction of 1% of the mass of the air. And then entire column of air is outweighed by a 10m column of water.
Doubling the water content of the air would put 10cm of the ocean water into the air.
And to double the water content of the air you'd need 25C of warming.
Wow's question re: 'influence' is a classic example of trying to get you to understand via Socratic means that your thinking is sloppy - if not outright wrong - and that you need to sharpen it up if you want to play with the big kids.
It's very telling that you try to deflect that point.
No.
It doesn't OVERRIDE any other force - it acts simultaneously with them. It's no wonder you believe silly claims when your thinking is so loose. You might be trying to say it's the dominant influence on various things - which might help, because then you'd need to think about what being "dominant" means, how to quantify it, situations where that is no longer the case, ...
Yep, that's what many trolls say when they finally realise they are unable to defend their position. Are we to expect your third flounce now? Have you been practicing hard at home, because lots of people would be really happy if you managed to stick it this time.
chameleon --- Up to a surprisingly large size a water drop is (roughly) spherical due to surface tension, irrespective of the fact it is in free fall (at the start). A water drop on a smooth surface is also a deformed sphere for the same reason.
Even in bulk a careful calculation of surface waves needs to take surface tension into account, not ordinarily done in Physics 101.
Excellent. That's the point I was trying to bring out in small pieces to chameleon :-)
Chammy, I'm afraid your arrogance and your competence are in inverse proportion. You are remarkable, even in the murky world of 'skepticism', in your uncanny - and I suspect, willful - inability to ever understand the point.
So, instead of pontificating like some superannuated schoolmarm, let's have you answer a question -
Do you deny the essential truth of what we are telling you? However many pointless semantic games you wish to play with the word 'strong' - and it's one of the defining characteristics of the truly third-rate intellect that they conflate these pedantic definitional arguments with substantive ones - all the complex forces operating on the oceans ensure that the noxious Spangly's absurd 'aggressive' platonic level will never occur? And that these inevitable irregular deviations away from the 'perfect' sphere will also vary with time and the changing regimes of these forces?
Therefore no mark on a river wall anywhere can ever disprove the notion of global median sea-level rise, a point that's so mind-numbingly obvious that it's hard to believe that any thinking adult could ever have attempted to challenge it.
Because, if you're arguing with that basic principle, you're a science denier.
It's that simple.
Cue refusal to answer the question and further smug 'aha!' quibbling in 3, 2,1...
Yes David B,
I am aware of that.
Surface tension is also a measureable factor.
In Wow's bucket example however, as it is in waves, gravity is still an important part of that equation even though it can be 'assumed'.
Why don't the waves stay high (with their attendant surface tension) when the forces that created them like winds and storms eventually calm down?
And David B, it may not normally be done in Physics 101, but it is not very clever to 'deny' what we learn in Physics 101 is it?
Chameleon, if you really want to prove SD's argument right you need to start with at least these two things.
1) Refute the arguments against its argument.
Posing unquantified questions using undefined terms such as "aggressively seeking equilibrium" - when the very nub of the error in SD's "argument" is failing to demonstrate the quantifiable relationship that he asserts - doesn't get you any closer to a refutation.
(Do you see why I asked you to address my refutation, and why NOT addressing it is interpreted as an admission that you haven't got a leg to stand on?)
2) Refute the measurements that demonstrate SD's claim that sea level simply cannot rise at different rates in different parts of the globe.
You're spending an awful lot of energy failing at (1), but (2) is clearly going to be much more difficult to achieve. That's rather revealing, methinks.
If you could bring yourself to SIMPLY answer the question Wow would say what he's been waiting to say and we might have ourselves a teaching moment.
Go on, answer it.
Must water always fall out of a bucket that is upside down?
Fixed it for you.
And well, as they say in Physics 201, everything you learned in Physics 101 is wrong. Or rather, it is an approximation and now we're here to learn what really goes on.
And as they say in Physics 301, everything you learned in Physics 201 is wrong. Or rather, it is an approximation and now we're here to learn what really goes on.
And as they say...
Doh! Fix broken!
Wow,
if a bird stops flapping or gliding on it's wings or if an aeroplane's engines fail or even if a whirly wind stops blowing dust up in the air:
What happens?
Or how come a bird has to flap to fly?
Lotharsson,
From what I've seen at this thread, I'm sure David B is entirely capable of answering his own questions.
I also hope for David B's sake he has a much better go at answering it.
I have no idea why you think I haven't answered Wow's bucket question.
Other than you continuing to play at arguing semantics.
I apologise that you find my use of terminology so terribly offensive.
But considering you are into crowing about 'ritual intellectual humiliation' then you would need to be 'intellectually offended' I suppose.
And Wow,
We were talking about water and gravity, not birds.
A bird's relationship with gravity is different to water's relationship with gravity.
Offensive? No.
But sloppy. Ambiguous. Vague. Ineffective. Often misleading. Yes.
If you have, you are extremely stupid. Wow's question was about a bucket that is upside down. Your answer referred to the bucket material holding the water in (and, inexplicably, to water tension). That clearly doesn't apply to an upside down bucket - at least for the rest of us.
Well, except those pesky ones that just glide. But it's a useful question, because it gets us one step closer:
Bingo! So now we finally have a tiny light dawning in your brain.
That's what Wow's line of questioning has been seeking to point out. When you claim gravity OVERRIDES other forces...it clearly doesn't in some circumstances! So...understanding ALL the significant forces acting on an entity is important. That goes for gliding birds, flapping birds, water in buckets (upside down or otherwise) - and water in oceans.
In other words, your "aggressively seeking equilibrium" argument is based on an over-simplified model of the world - and it is precisely because it is too over-simplified that the conclusion you are seeking to reach is not justified. That's what people have been trying six different ways to point out to you (and to SD).
chameleon --- If the bottom is infinitely deep a group of plane waves marches on forever. Friction at a finite depth bottom eventually puts an end to that but in the ocean not even the Pacific is wide enough for the larger waves.
Even that is Physics 101.
QED
Chameleon: Wow is trying to make you realize that it is possible to have water in an open bucket that is upside down, under normal gravity, and for you think about the broader implications of this regarding your claims about water "aggressively seeking equilibrium". Do not automatically assume that the questions you are being asked are meaningless.
Hint: the bucket is not upside down for very long.
Its not like the koan "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
A bird’s relationship with gravity is different to water’s relationship with gravity.
Honestly, that might be the stupidest thing ever posted on Deltoid. Neither a bird nor water have a "relationship" with gravity, they are acted on by it. And a 1 kg bird is acted on in exactly the same fashion as a 1 kg blob of water (in an area of equal gravitational potential). Its the other forces in play (eg lift for a flapping or gliding bird) that are different.
Claiming that gravity acts differently on birds and water is a throwback to pre-Newtonian, pre-Gallilean ideas about gravity:
Ita non amplitudine ponderis sed genere singularum rerum gravitatem esse non est negandum.
"So it cannot be denied that it is not the amount of weight by the specific nature of the object that gravity [acts on]". Vitruvius, De Architectura, Book 7, Chapter 8
It's a classic good-observation-bad-conclusion moment, since Vitruvius was confusing gravity with density. Chameleon seems to have made the same mistake - mistaking the density of his/her own posts for gravity...
boom-tish! ;-)
On the (optimistic) premise that no one could be that stupid, I suppose Chameleon will claim misunderstanding. But that's what was written. If Chameleon wants to avoid such, perhaps more care in what is posted would be helpful...
I note that dumbo is still in denial of reality that tide gauges other than his chosen few, for example Calcutta and Manila which are part of the tide gauges set used to compile the graph at the top of the post, could possibly be right.
Me
Isostasy is a principle taught in first year earth science. It addresses the bouyancy of continents with respect to the underlying mantle. I don’t have a textbook that it explains it, Can anyone help out here?
I just cracked open my 1st year textbook and it provides a good high-level description of the relationship of coast to sea level, using the concept of isostacy. "The Blue Planet: an introduction to earth system science" There is a new edition out (2011) by Brian Skinner and Barbara Murck . I recommend it to anyone who wants to get a quick understanding of how we understand the earth works.
As for the subsequent discussions on MSLR, High School Physics and Maths are a bare minimum for understanding ocean behaviour. The nuts and bolts are described in Ocean Dynamics text books which are at advanced undergrad/graduate level.
Yes indeed Anthony,
'Isotropic' is also a first principle.
Woah; sciencey.
While we have your attention, a direct answer to the simple question you've been asked multiple times, please. The BTP and 'ASE' is tosh, therefore Squidgy's river wall marker cannot disprove anything: True or False? It's not hard...
You won't give one, of course, and I wonder if the only person you're fooling as to why is yourself. However, your continual obfuscations, while progressively less entertaining, are certainly instructive - indeed, illustrative. Don't ever be fooled into thinking there's only half-a-dozen of us reading this...
As the old song had it, 'That ain't necessarily so...'. How do you think the Condor, and many other birds of prey go about searching for prey?
How do you think gliders, aeroplanes without engines, manage to stay aloft for hours? I have never seen a successful aircraft with flapping wings.
Oh! And BTW a bird's relationship with gravity is exactly the same, except for maybe the mass involved, as that of water.
You just don't ever thing carefully before writing do you. Analytical thought is a foreign land to you.
Oh my! Your ignorance goes deep.
Isotropic is not synonymous with isostasy. Here is some help on that: Isostasy. Now also take particular note of the explanation under 'Eustasy and relative sea level change' which may help you grok the basis of the arguments here.
On sea level the presentation by Richard Alley posted here at Climate Crocks is a must visit. Richard Alley is one of the most articulate scientists who has worked in the hostile field on ice masses. If you don't know about that then check it out including his informative book The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future is a must read.
For an indication of how quick on his 'thinking feet' Alley is his performance against Dana Rohrabacher is a must watch, see comment at the Crocks topic by caerbannog666.
"Or how come a bird has to flap to fly?"
Which shows that gravity isn't an OVERRIDING influence.
If gravity were overriding everything then birds would not be able to fly.
cham, do you even know what overriding means?
Do you need to get a dictionary for your birthday?
"In Wow’s bucket example however, as it is in waves, gravity is still an important part of that equation even though it can be ‘assumed’."
UPSIDE DOWN BUCKET YOU FRIGGING CLUELESS TWATFUCKFACE!!!!!
Is the problem you don't understand what upside-down means you ignorant cunt?
"I apologise that you find my use of terminology so terribly offensive."
No your actions are offensive you trolling twat.
"Honestly, that might be the stupidest thing ever posted on Deltoid. Neither a bird nor water have a “relationship” with gravity, they are acted on by it."
And what the fuck does "relationship" mean???
Are birds in a monogamous relationship with gravity whereas with water it has a polygamous one?
Or is gravity the birds' uncle, whereas it isn't any member of the water family???
Wow,
Perhaps Water and Gravity are "In a relationship", but for birds the status is "It's Complicated".
Who knew there was a Facebook of Physics? :-)
cham here is certainly a twit er.
:-) :-) :-)
chuckle.
You prove nothing at all by sooking over the use of terminology and arguing semantics.
I really do have to get back to a 'real' life and stop playing in the 'virtual' world of the blogosphere but I will certainly miss the entertainment here.
My first impression still stands.
Instead of discussing content and the sensible and practical application of real world consequences of damage to coastal infrastructure, most of you here are only interested in arguing for arguments sake over word usage and which scientists know everything and which ones don't (in your opinions.)
This latest little fling with the laws of gravity and the isotropic nature of water is a classic example.
We have people here who will introduce birds into a discussion about water and gravity and think they have contributed something worthwhile.
What do you think you proved?
That in your opinion I don't use enough scientific jargon?
Therefore I am unable to comment in a sufficiently intellectual manner (in your opinion?)
And just so you know it's not a blanket criticism, I did notice that David B and BoltFPM and Mr White and even SpangledD, actually did try to steer this discussion to practical concerns on several occasions.
Mr Harvey at some point accused me of wearing a right wing libertarian heart on my sleeve.
I could just as easily accuse Mr Harvey and others of wearing a left wing misanthropic heart on their sleeves.
But so what?
What does that achieve?
I'm confident that the climate, the weather and the natural world couldn't give a damn about your politics or mine.
Neither do they care that much about human invented computer model trends.
It is quite clear that coastal infrastructure is vulnerable to erosion and storms and it always has been. Humans have definitely very unwisely expected that their coastal infrastructure should just stay the same despite the obvious fact that coastlines have always and forever been vulnerable to change and erosion.
The hotly argued amount of SLR that the models attribute to AC02 is not the actual problem we need to solve.
You are all yelling here that something is happening and that it is all our fault.
Well doh!
Your'e partly right!
Something is happening in coastal areas AND IT ALWAYS HAS!
What are you personally doing about it other than arguing over the definitions of words and who has the best qualifications to comment?
What have you personally done to limit your 'addiction' to fossil fuels and the overuse and wastage of natural resources?
If you have 'done something' practical and measureable personally then congratulations.
If you haven't and you just keep screeching and arguing semantics on the blogosphere, then your arguments are purely academic.
And BTW,
Because some of you take yourselves so seriously and seem to lack a sense of humour, it is makes for very funny reading.
Of course I know that my little rant here has fallen on deaf ears and that I have probably sparked off yet another tirade of 'ritual intellectual humiliation' , but it looks like you enjoy it, so have fun.
I will decide myself whether it's worth my time to comment again as I'm not a very big fan of people 'shoulding' on me.
Or of course the moderator can make his/her decisions about that too.
"AND IT ALWAYS HAS!"
But we haven't 'always' been so dependent or so many.
Actually, on second thoughts, you aren't that far removed from the imaginary volcanoes meme, in terms of pure pig-ignorance..
You know, I believed that Australia should send a peace-keeping mission to East Timor. I didn't personally do anything practical and measurable to bring peace to East Timor. But the Government did. And it worked.
So, having dealt with that red herring, let's move on to Chameleon's claim to having a sense of humour. Perhaps this can be read as an admission that he realises his contributions are laughable?
As for comments about dealing with coastal erosion - does Chameleon not realise that warmer, rising waters necessarily spells more expenses to communities in that department? Does he not realise that if those waters are becoming warmer and higher as a result of human activity, then that human activity should be made to internalise the consequential expenses incurred by coastal communities as a result of the effects of that human activity?
In other words, where has he been since 1980, that this discussion has somehow passed him by?
No Chek,
I definitely don't 'believe' in imaginary underwater volcaloes.
In fact the first person and the only person I have ever seen claim that there is such a thing as a 'belief' in imaginary underwater volcanoes is you.
So do you 'believe' in such a thing as a 'belief' in imaginary underwater volcanoes Chek?
Is that similar to the 'belief' that the world was going to end on 21/12/12?
However here:
But we haven’t ‘always’ been so dependent or so many.
This is a more practical comment.
It is true that population is growing.
I'm not sure what you mean by so dependent?
So dependent on what in particular?
No Vince,
SHE (!) is laughing at the comments you make.
So you think the 'government' is capable of fixing it?
What has the government 'done' to fix the vulnerable infrastructure Vince?
We all could perhaps say that we 'furiously agree' that coastal infrastructure is vulnerable.
If you like we can start from 1980, but I think coastal infrastructure has been in great need of some sensible and practical engineering solutions for much longer than that. Some local councils in Australia have indeed taken responsibility and 'done something' about some of the issues, including the area that Spangled D appears to come from.
Maybe you could go back to an article linked by David B and another one linked by BoltFPM ealier in this thread that did indeed discuss these issues?
The argument was not primarily over who is correct, but what claims can be supported by the evidence. Claims that sea level rise is not increasing are not supported by the evidence. Claims that the rate of increase in sea level is decreasing are not supported by the evidence. Claims that the rate of increase in sea level is increasing are supported by the evidence (see the graph in the OP. Do appropriate statistics on it if you are not convinced).
Claims that extreme tides in one tidal estuary adequately represent global sea level, that water "aggressively seeks equilibrium" and that agreement over definitions is purely academic are just woolly thinking.
No. Jargon is not necessary, but clarity is. Throughout your presence here, your writings have demonstrated major gaps in your comprehension of climate and the way in which science is carried out, yet when people try to get you to understand, you assume that they are introducing red herrings and trying to irritate you. You need to display less arrogance, accept that you might just possibly be wrong and listen to what incredibly patient people like Lotharsson have to say to you.
You get upset by the rude words people like Wow use to you. To a scientist, your refusal to listen to arguments, let alone to try to understand them, and to acknowledge when you have been wrong is the ultimate in rudeness. I'm not sure why I'm writing this - you will likely just dismiss it as part of a general ganging-up against you and it will completely fail to penetrate your hide.
chameleon
It was you who introduced the [non sequitur] term isotropic, isostacy is a whole different concept which can be understood with a modicum of effort. These terms aren't thrown in to bamboozle, but because they have concise meaning in the context of this topic of MSLR. This is a Science blog after all.
The reason I mentioned these texts is because arguing for and against the science without a basic understanding of how the earth works is (as we have shown in spades) fruitless.
Whoops, unclosed bracket - hope that hasn't derailed the comment thread...
Anthony, didn't cham claim they were a postgraduate-educated scientist and their hubby was also a scientist?
You would have thought that a REPUTABLE university would have told them the meanings of such terms.
Maybe it was one of those mail-order PhDs.
"I definitely don’t ‘believe’ in imaginary underwater volcaloes."
Oh you certainly DO believe in imaginary underwater volcanoes.
And, just like all the believers in imaginary things (like fairies at the bottom of the garden or Santa Clause when you're a little child), they believe they REALLY exist, and if you were to tell them they were imagining things, they'd say "No, Santa really IS real, I believe in the REAL santa, not an imaginary one, silly!".
You know, just like you're doing.
But when you show that the things they think are happening that "prove" the existence of santa or your imaginary underwater volcanoes ARE NOT HAPPENING, then that is proof that the thing they and you believe in really ARE imaginary.
You just don't believe in the evidence of their nonexistence.
That doesn't make them real. They are most definitely imaginary volcanoes.
Maybe s/he was in her cups while posting?
"My first impression still stands."
Yes, it is a common trait amongst the most stupid of people that once they have reached an opinion they don't change it.
We cannot use logic to explain you out of a position that you didn't arrive through with logic.
My first impression has turned out to be completely correct, however, hasn't it.
"Instead of discussing content and the sensible and practical application of real world consequences of damage to coastal infrastructure"
When did you indicate anything along the lines of wanting THAT?
All you've wanted to do is discuss how "it isn't happening".
"Of course I know that my little rant here has fallen on deaf ears"
Maybe the problem isn't everyone else but actually you.
Here is an decent introduction:
http://theseamonster.net/2012/06/sea-level-rise-101/
So does mine. You came across as an ignorant troll confidently asserting things you read elsewhere but didn't actually understand and didn't realise were either false or vastly oversimplified, and subsequent evidence has only strengthened that impression.
Au contraire, we prove that you can't even state your case in reasonably scientific terms, let alone substantiate it, and that you'll try and pretend that the very pointing out of those facts is illegitimate. In science, definitions a.k.a. semantics are very important.
(Also thus far we have amassed evidence arguably amounting to operational proof that you are rather poor at scientific thinking and in particular at physics, lousy at logic and massively overestimate your own cognitive abilities.)
Well, that you:
(a) don't understand physics or climate science, amongst other things
(b) can't formulate a scientific hypothesis
(c) don't understand the implications of your own claims
(d) don't understand that you don't understand physics
(e) can be led to the water of understanding by commenters who are a lot better at it than you - but cannot be made to drink.
(f) can and will misunderstand just about anything put to you at near world champion level.
You could, but that would make you look like you don't know the meaning of still other words, like "misanthropic". Are you sure you want to add that to your litany of Epic Fail?
Your comment is almost entirely an attempt to pretend to yourself that your claims haven't been absolutely demolished, and introduce another set of squirrels that you hope will distract everyone from your neverending stream of Fail.
Called it :-) Flounce number 3! Anyone wanna bet that this is the final one? My money's on an imminent return. It usually takes more than three...
Oh, wait, call off the bet:
...she's gonna be back.
Not exactly, but I got the impression she wanted to give that impression. IIRC the words were that she has "academic science credentials" and something about her husband being a scientist.
Minimum credentials for practicing (academic) science research ARE a Ph.D. in a relevant field - but given how bad chameleon is at precise semantics the first image that popped into my head was Jo Nova making vaguely similar claims on the back of her B.Sc. and her Graduate Certificate in Science Education, and her husband once claiming to be a "rocket scientist" when he's not a scientist at all.
Don't middle school teachers have to earn “academic science credentials” before receiving a teaching certificate?
Didn't I get "academic science credentials" when I got a D for Chemistry in Year 10?
The difference between myself and Chameleon being that it appears largely unfamiliar with the concept of using paragraphs to structure a piece of writing.
So, perhaps no "academic credentials" in English, then.
Chameleon's writing isn't stark raving science-free and nutty enough to be Codling (who has form for making false claims about her and her hubby being scientists), but it does resemble Marohasy's style. She used to be a scientist, stopped, and perhaps is now back to practising it now that she's stopped taking pay from the IPA to denigrate science, although I have no idea who her hubby might be.
The 24 carat nutter.
Glad I am that I don't live in that head! And note the update - 'and it was all a dream!...'
FWIW Bolt For PM reveals himself here ...
http://jennifermarohasy.com/?p=9930&cp=79#comment-520444
Sooo, Chameleon flounces about complaining about non-scientific content of Jan 2013 OP, but when asked to explain herself in scientifically sensible terms, whines about "semantics" and flounces out again.
I'm shocked and surprised...oh, wait a minute, I'm not surprised at all...I guess her hairdresser is struggling to explain gravity to her.
In other words, nothing is proved by pointing out the errors in your incoherent scientifically illiterate nonsense rather than just agreeing with it.
You've found the troll spawning grounds!
...or a troll spawning ground, at any rate.
I note the immediate defensive over-reaction to someone who's actually not arguing with him. And then the Festival of the Obtuse resumes in earnest. Where the hell do they imagine the extra 200mm of water goes during a storm surge?...
you must live on a different planet where there are no large bodies of water that stay below the atmosphere or when you drop something it doesn’t fall down.
No I'm merely not an ignorant moron like you who didn't understand what I wrote because you're missing the necessary conceptual apparatus.
I stated two well-known basic facts of phsyics ... that gravity is a very weak force and that it acts on all mass equally. That you think that implies any of the counterfactuals you listed is because you are stupid and ignorant.
No, you imbecile, they different relationships to the atmosphere because birds have wings and a control system to drive them. But remove the atmosphere and they will plummet to the ground at the same (accelerating) rate.
BFPM. From over there. After someone posted a link pointing out the bleeding obvious to him.
Um, yes you were; JAQing along in concert with the genuinely toxic and appalling uber-Denier Spangles.
And, just to rub it in, should you be lurking about -
Chameleon provides us with a good conversation-starter:
"What has the government ‘done’ to fix the vulnerable infrastructure Vince?"
http://www.csiro.au/en/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Mathematics-Inf…
That was over 5 years ago.
It's hard to get into CIPMA, of course, but judging by the budget increases to AG's and GA over the last few years, work could probably be assumed to be proceeding apace...
Yeah, but, Vince, I notice they're using 'modelling', so obviously [ make up any old snide/smug drivel and hurriedly change subject ]
Reality's strong liberal bias seems to be very much in play of late...
And alleges chameleon "copped a hiding for just asking questions".
Er, no. Not even close.
Similarly one "Debbie" also claims there was "a personal attack on Humlum".
Er, no.
And that's just on the page of comments you linked to.
(Cohenite also shows up and asserts "SLR played no part in Sandy" which sets BFPM off on his incomprehension loop again...)
"I’m confident that the climate, the weather and the natural world couldn’t give a damn about your politics or mine"
What totally ignorant tosh. The fact is that certain socio-economic-political systems are spending natural capital like there is no tomorrow and are driving our planet's ecological life support systems towards hell in a hand-basket. Chamy writes as if the natural world is forever buffered against any kinds of assaults inflicted on it by humanity.
Along with her other examples of profound and willful ignorance, one can only wonder where she got her 'science' education.
Chammy's alma mater.
if a bird stops flapping or gliding on it’s wings or if an aeroplane’s engines fail or even if a whirly wind stops blowing dust up in the air:
What happens?
What happens if the bird doesn't stop flapping or gliding? Does gravity override lift and so it falls anyway?
Even you will agree that no, gravity doesn't override lift and the bird stays aloft.
Now, what about water in the oceans that is affected by currents, winds, tides (the Earth isn't the only source of gravity, y'know), variations in heat? Sure, if all of those forces completely ceased and only the Earth's downward pull were acting on the water then the SL would be equal everywhere, but what if those forces don't cease? (
hint)
While we're all pondering the next imbecility.
"and only the Earth’s downward pull were acting on the water then the SL would be equal everywhere"
How long would that take?
Go on chammie, assume that the earth stopped spinning, the entire solar system and the rest of the universe disappeared and there's a 5m difference in sea level height between the two most distant parts of the Pacific.
How long would it take to "agressively" level out?
Yep ... good old Anthony Cox/Cohenite ... can always be depended on to act like the purest distillation of all dickheads.
Wrong, you stupid arrogant ignoramus.
Note the title of the thread.
They are openly admitting they are entirely and deliberately trolling.
Shame is for humans, not for these idiots, apparently.
Also note that the trolls "JAQing off" are "just asking questions" when they do it, but if YOU do it to them, well then that's "shoulding at them". What does that mean?
Oh, look, I'm "shoulding" at them again..!
LMAO!
Note the title of the thread.
Um, it has nothing to do with the trolling.
Well then the comments were well off topic.
That certainly was a most amusing claim. I think chameleon thinks "weak" means something else, like many of the words she uses in the context of a scientific discussion.
Readers might be interested to know that the swamp brewed some essence of Drongo.
"You comment about gravity being a very weak force is highly questionable."
Gosh, I missed that one.
There is no way any creature can claim any science credentials if it is that unaware of physics.
In other words, Chameleon is a liar.
Interesting link Vince,
There doesn't seem to be any information about what they have actually done in practical terms.
However it is good that they recognised 5 years ago that they should research potential risks.
Do you know if they have recommended any practical, engineering work.
Is that what the increased funding is for?
As far as risk management re coastal erosion, there are plenty of examples from last century of what can be done as well as plenty of examples of what doesn't work.
As mentioned above, some local councils have taken responsibility and used engineering solutions to protect coastal infrastructure.
Yep, still lurking when I get a moment. Funnily enough, I did try to change my name to Graeme M but for some reason I never got through moderation:
"Graeme M
January 5, 2013
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
OK, I’ll drop the Bolt for PM thing, it WAS just a windup originally. I still think SD has a point, however thanks for all the various links and additional reading material etc. I’ve never really taken much notice of the SLR issue in the past but now I’ve dug around a bit it is fascinating. And that’s quite enough pseudo-reasonableness. Normal programming will now resume."
Anyways, my take on the SD thing after doing a fair bit of reading and digging through tide gauge data is that SLR is definitely in evidence going from tide gauges. My curiosity regarding the lack of apparent rise locally hasn't been fully assuaged, however I do note that what data there is from the SE Qld coast seems to show very little rise over recent years (although that does seem to have changed in the past year or two), so perhaps we simply haven't had enough rise for it to become obviously visible.
I still would like to get the Sandy thing clearer in my mind though. Bill, you say:
"And, just to rub it in, should you be lurking about -
The storm itself we can’t immediately link to climate change, but the flooding damage we can. As sea levels continue to rise, a storm of the same magnitude will cause even greater damages due to storm surges coming in on top of a higher baseline water level."
I do NOT disagree that tide gauge data for The Battery shows SLR over 150 years or so. I don't know to what extent local conditions have contributed, but let's discount those factors. My point was that you can't just asume that because mean sea levels show a rise of X, then X is the amount that the storm surge was increased by. Because sea level is at any time what it is, NOT the mean OVER time, we should surely have to know how much different the ACTUAL TIDE OF THE DAY was. That is, what was the predicted height of the time?
It turns out it's not easy for me at least to work out what a comparative tide might have been some time ago. And I do agree absolutely that all things being equal Sandy's surge was greater now than had it struck in say 1880. Of course I cannot judge just how equal all those things might have been. Nonetheless, what I did come up with were figures for the MEAN high tide of the period 1960-1978, and compared that to the predicted tide height when Sandy struck. And what I came up with was a positive difference of between 0-53mm, yet MSL over the period 1960-2012 appears from the graphs to have increased by around 100-150mm. So over the past 50 years at least, I don't think you can argue that SLR played a significant role.
And I make nothing more from that than those numbers for that particular event. I was just curious about whether or not Sandy might have been exacerbated by SLR.
Over at Jennifer's,, Stupid Dunce gives a text book demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. SD can't believe that an intelligent person said something, merely because it doesn't match SD's own Stupidity-Derived beliefs.
I guess it stops trying when it reaches a cliff, and that's why there are no waterfalls. But when the water does flow down and connects with the water below, why doesn't the water below rise up "aggressively" to achieve equilibrium? Or when the water reaches a barrier, I guess it doesn't try to go over it and join the water on the other side because, y'know, the two bodies aren't connected.
But this is the way that stupid people like SD and chameleon think ... shoddily, attributing intent and aggression to water, and a shared intent across all water that is "connected", or special relationships between water and gravity.
BWAHAHAH!
SD is a level-headed fellow ... someone sliced the top of his skull and brains clean off!
Here's the sort of discussion and debate we should be having ... not trying to get denier imbeciles to acknowledge the most basic facts:
http://grist.org/climate-energy/natural-gas-its-a-hedge-not-a-bridge/
BFPM - well, it appears that NOAA disagrees with you - but what would they know? And not only are you a fellow-traveller of the brazenly obnoxious here, you're a regular at Marohasy's, which makes you more clever than the CSIRO, the BoM, NASA, NOAA - the whole shebang!
Doesn't any part of your brain think 'what the hell am I doing with these dropkicks? These are my peers?'
Or do you also think that brown people are far too numerous, liars, and just after your (beloved) money? Or perhaps these are also just 'questions' that need 'asking'?
Creep.
Great JAQing-off technique incidentally; you can look forward to not really quite crediting that it might not have been possible that all the remainder of the predicted inundations over the next few decades might not - that's might, mind you, you're not saying they were; in fact, you're not really saying anything at all, are you, not really? - have been going to happen anyway, or there's this other convenient proximate cause that the truly perverse might just decide to attribute the whole phenomenon to, and, I mean, really, no-one can stop you, can they? and then you can always demand the exact alternate numbers from the control Earth we lack, and in their absence proclaim yourself smugly and Solomonically unconvinced...
Well, that's your dotage sorted out. You might have to tone it down a bit, of course, because you may find yourself a little less popular with every new disaster that people perversely fail to grasp the perverse interpretation of; but, hell, what larks, eh? Nyuk nyuk.
Gosh, Bill. You're a dick. But that's OK, I won't hold it against you.
How does NOAA disagree with me?
As for Ianam, welll... I think that last post of yours was a special kind of asshat-edness (I made that word up, clever huh?).
Here's a question for you. Imagine a box half full of water. Imagine a divider that seals completely, dividing the box in half vertically. Now fill one half so it is higher than the other. Remove seal. What happens? The water 'aggressively' seeks 'equilibrium'.
Why should that, generally speaking, not happen for the ocean? Sure there will be various local effects and all sorts of other things going on, but you'd assume that again, generally speaking, an ocean should endeavour to be largely level. Why does it not?
Ah yes, because you, like SD and chameleon, are too bloody stupid to understand it.
And is that because the two sides are "connected"? What if you just remove the top part of the seal (to below the level of the higher portion of water) ... does it just sit there because the two bodies aren't connected? I already gave the examples of waterfalls and ... --> barriers <-- over which water flows even when it isn't connected to the water on the other side ... didn't you even bother to read what I wrote?
No it doesn't; that is simply the wrong causal model -- there is no seeking and there certainly is no aggression. The water level will eventually (not "aggressively") reach equilibrium for purely mechanistic reasons that have nothing to do with seeking or being connected -- water will flow to the lowest surface it isn't prevented from reaching -- this is the result of the basic Newtonian mechanics of unbalanced forces -- whether that surface is more water or not.
No one says it shouldn't. Why do you fools always falsely attribute beliefs and claims? Oh, I've already explained it: because your too stupid to grasp the complexity of the claims people are actually making.
Such as what apply to Stupid Dunce's rivers.
No, one would expect; cretins assume.
Very generally. As I already pointed out, the oceans are sitting on the crust, not floating up in the air.
BfPM is a moron.
How could the ocean possibly be "level" when it is bound by gravity to a layer of an irregular-shaped body that is in motion in 3 dimensions.
Yet more demonstration that these deniers are simply stupid.
And Chameleon - for fairly obvious reasons, the information collected and generated by CIPMA isn't publicly disseminated.
You can get an idea of the sort of stuff they provide here:
http://www.ga.gov.au/ausgeonews/ausgeonews200609/modelling.jsp
But, more to the point, you can check the changing Shire- and City council policies on low-level developments to see how increasing awareness of the risks posed by the increasing sea level is affecting how we build near shorelines.
And of course I already gave an example that shows that, but shoddy sloppy thinkers like Dolt for PM ignore the challenging examples or questions that might make them think and instead jump to their own stupid blatantly obvious examples and questions that show nothing that anyone other than a strawman has disagreed with.
My example was of a waterfall that "connects" to water in the river below, but water flowing down a slope will do. Why does the water at the top "aggressively seek equilibrium" by flowing downwards but the water at the bottom doesn't "aggressively seek equilibrium" by flowing upwards? The Dolts and Dunces will think that's a stupid question because it's obviously due to that "special relationship" between water and gravity, completely missing the point that, yes, it's because of gravity (and all other forces combined), not because water "aggressively seeks equilibrium" -- it does no such thing; that is the wrong causal model. The water flowing down the slope will never reach equilibrium unless the supply of water ceases or the water below is dammed and thus rises to the level of the top of the slope ... and to figure out what happens then, we have to look back along the entire incoming flow of water. Now ... does that suggest anything about rivers?
Wow, that's great material. Are you winging it, or do your writers handle the retorts?
Indicative of me getting a little-too-close to the mark, methinks. Did you imagine you'd end up hanging out with the silver-haired brownshirts? But 'Just Asking Questions, of course... ;-)
Frankly, getting up the noses of mealy-mouthed cowards does not trouble me in the least. 'Hated by all the right people', as Noam Chomsky says.
And where did the link I provided here go to, little man? Look at the institution/s the interviewee hails from. Perhaps that's all not as authoritative as the crowd at Marohasy's, of course...
Read the bloody article. And then feel an even bigger fool - but just get angrier because you can't admit it to yourself.
ianam,
you have just furiously agreed.
A good but very angry description of the behaviour of water as dictated by gravity.
At no point did anyone say that water's natural behaviour can't be altered by various other factors.
But nonetheless you are entirely correct that water will always run downhill UNLESS it obstructed or is temporarily forced in the other direction by such things as pumps or strong winds or geographic barriers etcetera.
Anyone who has any experience of the sea will know that tides at any one place will vary a lot in their magnitude so comparing a specific recent high tide to a decades-old mean is not useful. If you allow for the high tide at the time Sandy struck being a relatively small one, then perhaps it will make sense to you (I can't be bothered to check out the actual figures for you).
I visited Jennifer's blog and read a bunch of comments about how the people on Deltoid are smart but they just don't understand. Classic!
Suppose that, instead of the lower side being filled with water, it's a solid block. What happens when we remove the seal? The water spills onto the block, and the resulting level is exactly the same as when the lower side is filled with water. It has nothing to do with the water on the two sides becoming "connected", and everything to do with unbalanced forces ... equilibrium is reached when the forces are balanced, even though there's a lot more water on one side than on the other.
Suppose that, instead of a block and a column of water, there are two blocks, with the water resting on one ... say that block reaches half of the way above the other block and the water reaches the rest of the way. Now, when the seal is removed, all of the water spills from the one block onto the other. The water level was in equilibrium before the seal was removed, and it is in equilibrium after the seal is removed ... after pouring entirely from one block to the other (except for a few drops that can't make it due to being impeded by frictional forces). Why did it bother to do that if it "aggressively seeks equilibrium"? Well, of course, because it does no such thing; it's just the wrong way to think about it, and leads to erroneous conclusions.
you have just furiously agreed
Yes, that's why you cretins are arguing with a strawman.
But nonetheless you are entirely correct that water will always run downhill UNLESS it obstructed or is temporarily forced in the other direction by such things as pumps or strong winds or geographic barriers etcetera.
All the things that make Stupid Dunce's claims -- and your and Dolt's support for them -- wrong and stupid.
you have just furiously agreed
Yes
Except that that I didn't agree with you moron's imbecilic conception of water "aggressively seeking equilibrium" ... I refuted it. The problem with you morons is that you are capable of seeing that my examples are valid -- I made them simple enough that even cretins like you will see that -- but you are incapable of connecting the dots and seeing how they falsify your claims. Repeatedly I said that water does not "aggressively seek equilibrium", but now you say we agree! No, we agree on the validity of my examples, but we disagree on how stupid and deluded and mistaken you are about that claim, which was the point of the examples.
And this captures that deep deep stupidity in a nutshell. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the "natural behavior" is based on all the forces acting -- we (the non-imbeciles) have understood this since Newton. That is the correct way to understand physical behavior, not "special relationships" or "aggressively seeking" ... the Earth does not "aggressively seek" an elliptical orbit around the sun and an apple does not "aggressively seek" to not Newton on the noggin.
s/not/hit/
Maybe, chameleon, you'll now agree that
was wrong, ignorant, stupid, and arrogant. I think they teach that gravity is the weakest force in elementary school these days.
So ianam?
Are you just angry about the terminology?
Of course the natural behaviour is based on all the forces acting.
However,
From your own example, we seem to agree that water will naturally run downhill as dictated by gravity, including spill over a cliff in a waterfall.
And Vince?
I had already mentioned that local shires had taken some responsibility in this area, well before the formation of this particular federal body.
I wanted to know if this 5 year old organisation was using and collating information from said local councils and recommending (and perhaps funding?) practical engineering solutions for some of the vulnerable infrastructure?
I agree that it isn't wise to build in low lying areas on coastlines, I don't believe that has ever been proven to be a particularly smart thing to do.
There is plenty of evidence from all sorts of places that eventually the ocean will defeat you whether via storms, king tides, inland flooding or a myriad of other well known facts about the dangers of building permanent infrastructure in low lying coastal areas.
"That’s why it’s called sea LEVEL!"
Well, explain RIVER LEVEL.
Go on.
It's sloping down, which causes the river to *flow*.
But we call the level of the water in the river "the river level".
And that is true of the rivers running down from Yarlung Tsangpo (altitude 3200m) and the river Jordan (altitude 400m).
Maybe you're just an idiot.
Ever considered that?
"At no point did anyone say that water’s natural behaviour can’t be altered by various other factors."
Yup, you've said nothing, taking a shitload of words to not say it.
Ever wondered if you can't find anything to communicate because you're too stupid to think?
"Now fill one half so it is higher than the other. Remove seal. What happens?"
Now what happens if that container is 2000 miles across.
Interesting animation and graphics in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami
although that doesn't have much to due with anything other than a temporary (but large) SLR. Still, it illustrates the solution to the Euler equations due to a step function.
"Of course the natural behaviour is based on all the forces acting."
Then calculate the forces acting on the pacific ocean.
Or can't you actually do any maths?
So ianam?
Are you just angry about the terminology?
Of course the natural behaviour is based on all the forces acting.
However,
From your own example, we seem to agree that water will naturally run downhill as dictated by gravity, including spill over a cliff in a waterfall.
I've already explained, but you are impenetrably stupid.
Now, why would you not agree that the movement of water is reduced because of viscous flow forces retarding motion.
This is, after all, why your rivers don't accelerate faster and faster, becoming raging torrents screaming past you at the mouth of the river, having been accelerating because of gravity for all the hundreds of miles the river has been flowing.
Or do rivers "aggresively level" on your planet "Cuckoo"?
Yes, he has.
With scientific understanding.
What he clearly hasn't done - clearly to anyone using more than a few brain cells, which just to be clear self-evidently does not include you on this topic - is agree with the mental model that you are "aggressively seeking" concurrence with.
Only a dolt would (once again) tell someone that their careful and precise disagreement is "furious agreement".
You are that dolt. You don't have to be - but that's entirely up to you.
Mind you, one would have to severely misunderstand physics and English to suggest:
...so you have your work cut out for you. Learning to think for the first time isn't trivial.
Moronic! SD's argument relies on precisely that.
Or to be more precise - which will no doubt be lost on you, as the bulk of your and SD's "argument" relies on NOT being specific - SD's argument asserts that there are bounds on the magnitude of the effects of other factors - bounds that are clearly counter-factual.
Chameleon, here's a key problem with your argument (apart from the fact that it's not physics, but let's wave the "not physics" aside for the moment, merely for the sake of this argument.)
How would one use the "principle" of "water aggressively seeks equilibrium" to calculate the maximum variation in sea level rise across the globe? I'm not asking for SD-like pontification or vague English descriptions. I'm asking how you would get to a defensible number.
I'm all ears.
Again we can see chameleon's conceptual failures and science illiteracy ... she apparently doesn't grasp that concept of forces, but instead thinks that gravity is some sort of (overriding) authority that orders water to flow downhill ... when it isn't ordering to stay level. And water, brownnoser that it is, aggressively seeks to follow those orders, despite pesky interference from all those unnatural annoyances like turbulence and viscosity.
It's understandable that people who sloppily think in such simplistic animist, narrative terms have trouble understanding why SD's rivers wouldn't reflect the same level changes as the oceans at large because, hey, they're all connected, man.
Lotharsson,
I was merely wondering why you and others got so upset and angry with the term 'aggressively seeks equilibrium'.
I am also nonplussed why you and others thought my comment about the isotropic nature of water meant that I thought it was the same as isostacy?
I re read my comment and it seems you all must have missed the 'so is' part of that very short comment?
Without trying to get complicated, that could mean 'also' or 'as well as'.
I certainly did not say 'the same as' or that it was a 'synonym'.
I agree that 'aggressively seeks equliibrium' isn't an accepted academic or scientific term, but I don't think there was anything inherintly wrong with Spangled D expressing it in that manner. It was fairly clear what Spangled D meant by that. (to me at least)
That does not then neccessitate me having to come up with a 'number' that I would need to get in a ditch over.
I actually don't think there is a solid 'defensible number' that anyone (including you) should have to get in a ditch over.
As has been commented here over and over again, there are far too many variables involved.
Why is it so necessary to get to a defensible number?
What is it exactly that would need to be defended by a defensible number?
For just how far astray people can go with such rules (which are really consequences under certain ideal conditions) as “water aggressively seeks equilibrium” or "water seeks its own level", see http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Science/Question627023.html
Almost as fascinating as the mental confusion in the question is the "answer" that the person who asked the question gives:
Gotta love that wholly inappropriate "QED".
I don’t think there was anything inherintly wrong with Spangled D expressing it in that manner.
Of course you don't, because you're a write-only imbecile, incapable of comprehending any explanation of how it is in error.
That does not then neccessitate me having to come up with a ‘number’ that I would need to get in a ditch over.
I actually don’t think there is a solid ‘defensible number’ that anyone (including you) should have to get in a ditch over.
As has been commented here over and over again, there are far too many variables involved.
Why is it so necessary to get to a defensible number?
What is it exactly that would need to be defended by a defensible number?
SD claims that the number is zero, or close to it. He argues this on principle ... the principle that "water aggressively seeks equilibrium". How might one get from the principle to "zero"? If there is defensible no way to do so, then "a billion meters" could also be consistent with the "principle", making the principle ... and SD's inferences from it ... worthless.
How would one use the “principle” of “water aggressively seeks equilibrium” to calculate the maximum variation in sea level rise across the globe?
I think the concept of a defensible calculation of a maximum is outside Chammy's experience and ken.
What does the "principle" say about this, considering that ocean and river water have different densities?
Richard Simons:
"Anyone who has any experience of the sea will know that tides at any one place will vary a lot in their magnitude so comparing a specific recent high tide to a decades-old mean is not useful. If you allow for the high tide at the time Sandy struck being a relatively small one, then perhaps it will make sense to you (I can’t be bothered to check out the actual figures for you)".
Richard, that is precisely my point. Sea level at any given moment is NOT a mean value, it is an actual value. And we have the records to be able to make an assessment. Now we know that Sandy struck near high tide, and that was the big fear. Clearly, whether it struck at high or low tide would make a difference to the height of the water at the time.
The question is, how much of a difference? I DID check the figures. But I may have gotten them wrong, I'll freely admit. Here's what I found.
First, it would be easy enough to argue for a 'baseline' increase and claim THAT is what we can say was added to the storm surge. But I think that's overly simplistic. IF we could come up with the figures to compare 1960 to 2012, we would have a number. It may not necessarily prove anything as tides do vary, but the variation is not THAT extreme.
This plot shows tidal values for 12 months:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/cgi-bin-mp/data_plot.cgi?mins=&datum=6…
You'll see from this that while values range from around 1 metre to 2 metres, the average is around 1.5-ish. So on the basis of that one year's data, it seems safe to assume there is no major variation away from a mean value, although sadly the NOAA site won't let me use a longer period.
Now, sea level according to the gauge data HAS increased since 1870, however I can only find data of much shorter vintage. I wanted real tide data, not mean values. Unfortunately again, the NOAA site won't give me that.
So, what I did have to work with is the mean value for the period 1960-78, and the actual values for 2012. As tide heights and predictions are made using the Mean Lower Low Water datum, it would seem using a mean value is acceptable for assessing the water level at a particular time.
What I found is that the 1960-78 mean value for a high tide was 2393mm, adjusted for the actual local benchmark offset. The predicted tide height for October 29 2012 was 1444mm, which adjusted for the current benchmark offset is 2446mm. So, the tide at the time of Sandy was predicted to be around 50mm higher than for the 60-78 mean value. But as the 2393mm is a MEAN value, we know that some tides must have been above that value, so it is possible the difference is less than 50mm.
This is useful to some extent, as the argument of the OP is that SLR is accelerating. This implies greater effects as time passes, so the fact that we only have some 50 odd years of data here is not so inconsequential. Granting too that I understand the greater forcing from anthropogenic contributions is most marked in the period since around 1950, then we have some good representative data for the claim.
See here for evidence that global ocean heat content has risen most sharply since 1950 (see slide 1):
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
See here for the averaged SLR rate for The Battery which does show a slow down from 1940-1980, but an increase from 1980 to the present day:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/battery_30yrate2.jpg
On the whole, I conclude that SLR effects from AGW should be more noticeable at The Battery for the period post 1940 than for the period prior. I grant that SLR IS occurring according to the data. I conclude however, that there is little evidence for a significant impact from AGW driven SLR in the past half century. I DO however accept that SLR is occurring and future storm surges may be influenced by that and this should be accounted for in local planning.
By the way, the tide gauge at The Battery is inside the harbour some distance from the actual river mouth. Do you think any of the factors so strenuously claimed to invalidate SD's obs might apply here?
Bolt for PM --- Tide in the Hudson goes way up river. Maybe still measurable at Troy.
David Benson, I could try that, but wouldn't there be the potential for the confounding factors that have been proposed for invalidating SD's obs? Sandy Hook might be another option too, I may have a look at that later if I have time.
I am making no claim that I've got the numbers right, it is more the conceptual approach for establishing the extent to which Sandy's surge might have been affected by SLR.
I have no idea which one you mean. Try quoting it if you want people to reconsider it.
I'm neither upset or angry.
But I'm pretty sure you did more than "merely wonder about a term". You (breezed right past my earlier explanation of why it's used as part of SD's flawed argument to) assert that it's a valid principle. You also refused to examine that earlier explanation after I pointed it out to you.
Do you see the difference between being "upset" at a term and disagreeing with the claim that a vaguely worded principle is physically valid?
And then you refused to acknowledge that as written the "principle" is physically incoherent, and refused to define it precisely enough to do calculations with, and still refused to look at previous arguments pointing out it is flawed...
And:
Look! You're doing it again!
You seem to have decided no new knowledge will enter your brain, and you're just going to reiterate the same crap over and over again.
No, it doesn't. But you have to do one of two things which thus far you clearly cannot do:
1) Demonstrate that it is a valid general physical principle (which would require defining it in physics terms - "aggressive" and "seeking" are not physical concepts, and "equilibrium" is far more general a concept than the way you are trying to use it).
2) Demonstrate that it is valid for the specific use SD puts it to.
Since you say (2) isn't necessary for you, I await your best attempt at (1) - or your withdrawal of the assertion that it's a valid principle.
That is, of course, assuming you are willing to begin engaging in a rational exchange of ideas. So far you've indulged in almost every "No" path in that flow chart.
Oh and Bill, the comment above is also a response to your comment beginning:
"Wow, that’s great material. Are you winging it, or do your writers handle the retorts?"
The linked article makes the same claim of an 'increased baseline'. I am proposing another way to think about the matter. Maybe it's been thought of before, maybe I am way off beam. But you could try considering the idea.
As for my retorts, I come up with them all by myself. Mummy doesn't even help me.
The simplest conceptual approach is to figure out the sea level rise in the locale from the long term average sea level data which is used to measure sea level in the locale. You know, the approach that you appear to be rejecting as "overly simplistic" - without being able to pin down why directly measuring what you're actually trying to measure is "too simplistic", let alone why measuring something else instead and then trying to infer what you want to measure is more appropriate.
Bolt for PM --- The Battery tide gauge must be right beside Battery Park. The point is that that the measurement location you have; stick with it.
[You are close to convincing me that anthropogenic SLR had an almost negligible addition effect during Frankenstorm Sandy's wipe out of New Jersey and New York.]
Lotharsson, how about you evaluate what I've actually done? I think it IS overly simplistic to just say that an averaged value is the actual value.
To properly assess how much the tide of the day was affected by SLR would require that we know how high the same tide was at some distance in the past. I have selected 1960 as my target date.
If we had that data, we could say here is the height in 1960 and here's the height today. The difference is the extent to which SLR contributed. Can you argue against that?
Now, I have said I can't get that data. But I *can* get a mean height for that tide which sets a lower bound on my comparison range, and I *can* get the predicted height of that tide in 2012.
I think that gets me pretty close to what I asked. Tell me why not.
Do you think any of the factors so strenuously claimed to invalidate SD’s obs might apply here?
Don't be a jerk. It is SD who strenuously claims that his eyeballing of river levels + "water aggressively seeks equilibrium" => there's been no global SLR. You know that he is wrong. All that has been argued here is that his principle is wrong and that some combination of factors contributes to the difference between his observations and global SL.
Thank you David B. I actually had no axe to grind with Sandy, this is just what I came up with when I thought about it. I might be quite wrong, but explain why I am rather than making unsubstantiated claims as Richard Simons did when he said, "you're wrong but I can't be bothered looking at the figures" or Lotharsson who says "hey sea level did rise so it must have contributed at the max possible averaged value"
All those arguing against SD's claim of aggressive equilibrium, tell me how regular would the sea surface height be for the Pacific Ocean over its extent when measured against the geoid, if we absented the effects of heat, currents and wind?
And in this hypothetical, if the Indian Ocean were completely disconnected from the Pacific Ocean AND it were say 100 metres higher, what would happen were we to connect each via a large canal?
All those arguing against SD’s claim of aggressive equilibrium, tell me
No. Take a look at the link Loth posted about rational discussion, and then first address the points actually made against SD's claim.
Bolt for PM --- If I understand matters aright, without wind and currents the sea level would be at the geoid.
The Indian Ocean connects to the Pacific via the Indonesian archipelago; the connection being not open there is quite a height above geoid difference. During La Nina the height difference is lessened.
Not fully open.
But even with no obstacles, the sea level off Taiwan is over 100 meters above the geoid.
what would happen were we to connect each via a large canal?
Here's a prime example of a violation of the rules of rational debate. You already gave your experiment of two columns of water of different heights and, as I noted, no one disagrees that the water will flow from the higher column to the lower column. Attacking your stupid strawman in yet another way won't get a different result. Meanwhile you have failed to address any of our arguments and experiments. That's because you're an intellectually dishonest jackass ... and sadly for you, your failure to follow the rules of rational debate lead you to not learn anything from anyone.
Richard Simons did when he said, “you’re wrong but I can’t be bothered looking at the figures”
He didn't say that, liar. If you're going to use quote marks, put inside of them things that people actually said.
Here is what Richard actually wrote:
Nowhere did he say you're wrong. You yourself said "Richard, that is precisely my point."
See Ianam, you argue by way of being a jerk, just like Billy boy. I don't have time to read every comment in detail or every link so I have no idea what you are talking about regarding rational debate.
How about you simply address the actual example and question? It seems simple enough to me. Your earlier response was crap, a deliberate effort to obfuscate a simple proposition.
David B, "Bolt for PM — If I understand matters aright, without wind and currents the sea level would be at the geoid. The Indian Ocean connects to the Pacific via the Indonesian archipelago; the connection being not open there is quite a height above geoid difference. During La Nina the height difference is lessened. But even with no obstacles, the sea level off Taiwan is over 100 meters above the geoid."
Yes, but that 100 metres is the result of currents etc I would have thought? Absent those effects?
Oh and sorry for not putting the actual words in the quotes, Ianam. Sue me. Jerk.
Bolt for PM --- See my earlier comment.
See Ianam, you argue by way of being a jerk
Tone troll asshole.
I don’t have time to read every comment in detail or every link so I have no idea what you are talking about regarding rational debate.
Right, you're a write-only asshole who can't be bothered with what anyone else says.
How about you simply address the actual example and question?
You first, asshole. As I noted, I've already addressed your previous experiment, in several posts. People have already given numerous arguments against SD's claim. You haven't addressed any of them ... instead you present yet another pointless attack on a strawman. Because you're an asshole.
Oh and sorry for not putting the actual words in the quotes, Ianam.
Sorry doesn't cut it, asshole, because as I noted, what you did put in quotes was a lie -- it's not what Richard said or meant.
Jerk.
Yeah right, pointing out that you're a dishonest sack of shit makes me a jerk. Go to hell, asshole.
I don’t have time to read every comment in detail or every link so I have no idea what you are talking about regarding rational debate.
You really have to marvel at these write-only shitstain trolls who don't have time to read numerous rebuttals of their comments but have plenty of time to pose yet another thought experiment without ever addressing the comments of the previous one. As I've said before, it's neurotic to engage with these shitholes ... I admit it.
Graeme M said:
No, he doesn't. Drongo hasn't accounted for:
1) impounding resulting from river damming
2) flood levels
3) dredging and bar shifting
4) river mouth engineering
5) canal development, bank engineering, drainage engineering
6) solar, lunar, and orbital tilt conjunctions, and the effects of apsides
7) regional ocean current effects
8) El Niño/La Niña impacts
9) dynamic wave setup and wave runup effects
10) tectonic trends
And that's just the list that I'm talking from the top of my head - I can't be shagged rereading this and previous threads for other points that I and others have raised over time (others might like to list things I've omitted).
To what data are you referring? The data I've seen shows increase in SE Queensland, although it is locally less than either north or south. However this local relatively less increase is no refutation of global sea level rise, which has always been Drongo's overarching claim.
And like it or not, the sea level is rising.
It seems simple enough to me.
Of course, because you're an arrogant sack of Dunning-Kruger shit and can't imagine that you're wrong, so your approach to "debate" is to get others to admit to something that they have never denied because you think that implies that you're right because you're too stupid to conceive of anything else. And because you're an arrogant stupid piece of shit you feel no need to read, let alone address, other people's questions, points, and thought experiments. Go to hell, asshole, you make me sick.
And like it or not, the sea level is rising.
The bizarre thing is that Dolt for PM has now said so, several times, and yet he still wants to defend SD's idiocy even though the whole point of that idiocy is to infer that SL isn't rising. Ah well, trying to penetrate the mind of such a stupid shitstain isn't worth the effort.
Yes, but that 100 metres is the result of currents etc I would have thought? Absent those effects?
If you take away all the effects that work against complete global equilibrium of sea level (if that were even possible), then you get complete global equilibrium of sea level; duh -- tautology. Does that imply that "water aggressively seeks equilibrium"? Uh, no, so ... major logic fail. Might it be true nonetheless that "water aggressively seeks equilibrium"? No, for reasons already explained that the write-only sack of shit can't be bothered to read or comprehend.
OK, seeing as we are on a roll. Here's a question regarding tide gauge data. Now remember, my math and physics is extremely limited, so my question could be a completely ignorant one. If so, JerkIAm oops sorry, Ianam will tell me so in no uncertain terms and I'll chuckle at his frothing foaming incoherence. However maybe someone else can explain to me clearly and simply where my thinking is in error.
Tide gauge data is as far as I can tell a reading of tide heights taken at strictly regular intervals. Mean Sea Level is an averaging of those values. When I think about that, it hurts my head. But here's my thought, such as it is.
Is the statistical averaging taking into account any skewing caused by actual tidal irregularity?
If tides rose and fell by precisely the same amount at precisely the same intervals, and high/low tide was held for only so long as any other point in the cycle, then regular readings would indeed give us a reasonable average.
But, what if the rate of rise/fall was slower near high tide than near low tide, or high tide as a value was held for longer than low tide? Wouldn't this mean that our readings would have more higher values than lower values, and hence our average would be skewed to a higher value? Or vice versa, and thuse skewed to a lower value. And I would imagine that such an error would accumulate over time.
Is this an actual effect, and if so, has it been accounted for? or do I simply not understand statistical mechanisms.
BfPM:
You owe us apologies for lying and not even attempting to accurately represent what we wrote. Why are people who dispute climate change and its effects so frequently dishonest?
Why are you comparing a specific high tide in 2012 with a mean high tide in an earlier decade? If you are serious about the question (which sounds rather weird to me) you should determine where in the range of predicted high tides the one you are interested in falls (e.g. at the 20th percentile) then compare it with the height of the 20th percentile tide in the 1960s or whenever it is that you are agonizing over. But frankly, I don't understand why you can't accept that the increase in high tide level would be very close to the change in mean sea level.
Ianam: "If you take away all the effects that work against complete global equilibrium of sea level (if that were even possible), then you get complete global equilibrium of sea level; duh — tautology. Does that imply that “water aggressively seeks equilibrium”? Uh, no, so … major logic fail. Might it be true nonetheless that “water aggressively seeks equilibrium”? No, for reasons already explained that the write-only sack of shit can’t be bothered to read or comprehend."
Don't be dense. So, you agree we would have complete global equilibrium of sea level in that hypothetical? So, go one step further.
IF one ocean were completely disconnected from another in this case, AND we added enough water to Ocean A such that it is now 100 metres higher than Ocean B, what would happen if we connected both by a canal deeper than the difference between the two. Let's say a 200 metre deep canal when measured from the level of Ocean A.
Simple question, no bullshit, just answer the question.
his frothing foaming incoherence
Of course Dolt blames me for his own appalling stupidity and inability to comprehend ... even when I'm frothing and foaming I'm coherent. But really it's just a typical denier ad hominem sidestep to avoid addressing points.
Why are people who dispute climate change and its effects so frequently dishonest?
Because any honest person would have already made the correct inference from the evidence.
Depends what you mean by "averaged value".
If you mean "change in average sea level taken over a sufficiently long period at a single location in order to measure sea level at that location", then the averaged value is measuring what scientists call "sea level" at that location.
Your entire schtick on this thread has been one long disingenuous and futile attempt to avoid that fact.
I fail to recall writing those words. Given that you misunderstand things at least half as often as the spectacularly misunderstanding chameleon, how about you be honest and find and accurately quote what you are responding to.
Even more honest would be to go through my actual argument and point out where you disagree and why, instead of dismissing it as "waffle".
No.
Not even when you ignore all of the previous explanations why not and repeat it for the twentieth time.
The scientific definition of sea level refutes your claim about "proper assessment" because that definition implies what are and are not "proper assessments" of sea level rise.
After all of this time you are either too stupid or recalcitrant to accept this fact - and even more stupidly, you seem to hope that your procedure will get a different but more valid answer.
But even if we set aside the fallacious presumption in that claim, as demonstrated much earlier (but dismissed by you as "waffle") you don't have a clue how to find "the same tide some time in the past" because you seem to be oblivious to many of the factors that affect tide height. You would need to understand them all in order to find a suitable "corresponding tide" in the past - and even then you'd have a whole swathe of measurement uncertainties piling up instead of the far smaller uncertainty associated with actually measuring sea level at that locale.
ROFLMAO!
You truly are either clueless or deeply dishonest. You previously dismiss comments addressing your actual claims as "waffle", and then come back and reiterate your claims and demand that they be addressed. That's another form of jerkhood - but unlike ianam it is deeply dishonest.
Apart from the reasons which you dismissed as "waffle", because you're apparently comparing two different quantities. Not only are they different metrics, one is apparently a prediction and one is a measurement. You cannot directly compare them.
Simple question, no bullshit, just answer the question.
I've already told you, asshole, that I won't answer your pointless questions until you've addressed the points, questions, and thought experiments in my previous posts addressed to you. That's what's known as fair.
Oh, for God's sake! What, you mean all the people who have ever studied this for a living never thought of all that? Jeebus. Extraordinary claim: extraordinary evidence beyond 'if we take my inexpert and not-overly-plausible assumption for granted, then...' please.
And now you're really trying to argue the oceans haven't risen again! This is getting like Achilles and the Tortoise - the point is we know the oceans are rising.
Please go take this up with Tamino. Seriously. I don't know what David Benson's qualifications are, but I do think that Grant Foster would be an expert in the field of statistics you really could take this up with. My prediction is that you won't. Surprise me.
I won’t answer your pointless questions
And, of course, I've already answered it. I've given the answer Dolt wants. So why does he ask again? I explained that above ... because the stupid arrogant sack of shit can't imagine that the answer he wants doesn't lead where he wants it to. I've already explained why, but the stupid arrogant sack of shit can't be bothered to follow anyone else's argument but his own.
The one where the earth doesn't rotate and hasn't done for a very very very long time, the earth doesn't orbit the sun, there is no moon, there has been no continental plate movement or changes for a very very very long time, the geographical heat being emitted from the crust has been absolutely constant for a very very very long time, there is no life in the ocean, etc., That one?
Well, it depends what you mean by "equilibrium".
If the sun shines on one side of the earth and not the other with enough energy to keep the earth warm enough that there's no surface ice anywhere, there will be a large temperature difference which will affect the distribution of water. One side will have higher sea levels with respect to the geoid than the other - and there will STILL be currents driven by temperature and height differentials - and on a sphere these cannot be purely smooth so the water surface will not be smooth either. One might be tempted to call this equilibrium, depending on one's definition, but I take it that's not what you meant ;-)
If you simplify your thought experiment enough you'll get the answer you are seeking from everyone else. You need a planet that's warm enough not to form sea ice, but is also experiencing no change in any forces (that matter for the purposes of water behaviour) for a very very very long time. (Never mind that this is almost certainly impossible. The "warm enough" criterion generally requires some ongoing non-static process that MUST CHANGE over time.) However, hypothetically speaking, if you had such a beast then once everything settled down the water would become much like SD's mental model of earth - it would follow the geoid.
But then you have to remember that the simplified thought experiment is not physically possible - and certainly a lot different from Earth - so you can't draw conclusions about Earth behaviour from it.
Bill: "Oh, for God’s sake! What, you mean all the people who have ever studied this for a living never thought of all that? Jeebus. Extraordinary claim: extraordinary evidence beyond ‘if we take my inexpert and not-overly-plausible assumption for granted, then…’ please."
No, I'm not making any claims. I am just genuinely curious. If what I suggested DID happen, it could mean that gauges under record SLR as much as they might over record it, so it might not necessarily be in my sceptical favour.
As I know little about tides, gauges and statistics, it is most likely that my thoughts are quite ignorant. I was just wondering if anyone can show that this possibility has been considered and discounted.
Don’t be dense. So,
Reveal. When people who aren't Dolts say "don't be dense", they follow it by pointing out the obvious thing that someone is being dense about. But not Dolt; oh no ... he just puts that out there to wave something not dense at all away because ... he is dense and dishonest. Here is what I wrote:
There is nothing dense about that. But the Dolt doesn't even know what I'm arguing there because, as I said, he can't be bothered to read what I previously wrote. Instead he plays this stupid immature game of "answer this simple question" when it's a question that I already answered in the context of his previous thought experiment and I gave exactly the response he wants. But because the Dolt is so dense, he can't comprehend why that doesn't get him where he wants to go ... even though I just explained it in the bit that he waves away as being dense.
Loth thinks I'm a different kind of jerk ... but why? Why am I a jerk to have the contempt for people like Dolt that I do? Even Loth has totally lost his patience for someone like Chammy.
if you had such a beast then once everything settled down the water would become much like SD’s mental model of earth – it would follow the geoid
But it still wouldn't imply that "water aggressively seeks equilibrium", which is the argument that the Dolt is trying to make. So his "So, you agree" is just incredibly effing stupid, a total D-K retard thinking that he has won some precious concession when in fact it gets him nowhere.
Oh, yes, I agree.
There's no "seeking" going on.
There's no "aggression". That requires intent. Even if you were to argue that "aggression" means "rapidly reaches", THAT is terribly inaccurate on a body the size of the Earth - and it requires such a static set of forces that the endpoint would not be a geoid-level ocean but an approximately geoid-level ice covered planet.
Heck, even "equilibrium" is arguably not a very good descriptor for the state they are trying to describe.
The whole mental model revealed by that phrase is very poor physics, and easily leads people who aren't thinking very well to erroneous conclusions.
And here's the amazing thing about this Dolt. After getting agreement to his stupid strawman that "we would have complete global equilibrium of sea level in that hypothetical", he wants to go "one step further". How incredibly retarded! Sure, if we dig a canal between two bodies of water at different altitudes and ignore all real world factors then the water will flow from the higher to the lower for reasons that I explained at length when discussing his two columns of water -- there are unbalanced forces; it's physics .01. But it's not that "water aggressively seeks equilibrium" -- that is stupid and wrong for reasons that I've explained. Will the water reach equilibrium? Well, eventually ... but it will take a very long time, as Wow noted, unless one hypothesizes away so many real world factors that the water no longer deserves to be called water because it has completely different properties. But even then the equilibrium won't be because the water "aggressively seeks" it ... that's just a stupid and wrong conception, and no amount of Doltish questions can get one there.
"Yes, but that 100 metres is the result of currents etc I would have thought? Absent those effects?"
No, it is largely the result of gravitational anomalies.
Gravity varies from place to place depending on the composition of the underlying rock.
Anyway, you've provided ample admission of your ignorance in these areas, so these floundering questions of yours would be best addressed by personal study.
It is not possible to address a lack of familiarity with Geology 101 through a succession of blog post comments wherein the purported seeker of knowledge constantly skates from topic to topic without ever seemingly ingesting any of the information it is provided with.
Come back when you're ready.
I'm pointing out that there are two different reasons (apparently being conflated here by BFPM in order to allege a false equivalence) for calling someone a jerk.
The first is failing to maintain strict verbal decorum, even under extreme provocation. That's what BFPM is applying to you. And doing so is usually a form of tone trolling.
The second is misrepresenting or outright lying about what people said, lying or being disingenuous about the evidence, refusing to debate in good faith e.g. by ignoring people's arguments and rebuttals and then demanding they (re-)address your umpteenth repetition of the claim, and all of the other forms on that flowchart I linked to.
They're not the same thing at all, no matter how many times people try to conflate them. You'll see some rabble-raising politicians - almost invariably on the "right" the last couple of decades - trying to play this game. They'll make the most outrageous accusations or violations of logic in a calm and unemotional manner, but the minute there's any emotion during a response pointing out they are completely full of shit they will play the tone troll card and start calling for "civility".And THAT is another example of the second kind of dishonest jerkhood.
Even if you were to argue that “aggression” means “rapidly reaches” ...
The whole conception is broken because how fast "equilibrium" is reached is a matter of the entire contingent interplay of forces. Both "aggressive" and "rapidly" are relative terms, but to what? Even with small contained columns of water, a less viscous fluid would flow more quickly. So sure, water is "aggressive" relative to molasses or lava.
Heck, even “equilibrium” is arguably not a very good descriptor for the state they are trying to describe.
I understand ... I just use it as a concession to their terminology, but I did note a few times that it's the level that reaches "equilibrium", meaning that it's the same everywhere ... it's meaningless to talk about water "seeking" equilibrium, like some yoga student.
I’m pointing out that there are two different reasons (apparently being conflated here by BFPM in order to allege a false equivalence) for calling someone a jerk.
The first is failing to maintain strict verbal decorum, even under extreme provocation.
Ok got it ... but isn't being a jerk in my book. I'm a jerk when I start trading pointless insults with someone (like Wow) just to try to one-up him ... but I'm genuinely angry at people like Dolt and Chammy and what their sort is doing to human civilization.
There is no such thing as "equilibrium" in a system that is constantly subject to varying forces.
The sea sloshes around under the influence of a large number of forces all explainable by the laws physics.
Bolt-fans as a rule almost instantly betray their ignorance of physics.
There is no point arguing with the Bolt-fan beyond stating the bald facts of which it is so plainly unaware.
It is a mystery what pleasure it is that these retards gain from exposing here their ignorance, but it isn't particularly amusing.
In fact, it occurs to me that Bolt-fan's simplistic incomprehension of sea levels mirrors the "CO2 is heavy, so it stays near the surface" nonsense you regularly find posted on its favourite blog-sites.
They're just idiots.
Hey, can we further blow Bolt-fan's meagre brains by mentioning earth-tides and their effect on the measurement of sea level?
LOL.
BfPM:
"Is the statistical averaging taking into account any skewing caused by actual tidal irregularity?"
Monthly averages, as normally used by (e.g.) the PSMSL and NOAA are just that - calendar-monthly 'bucket' or 'boxcar' averages. Because a month is a large number of complete cycles (the main constituent in most places has a period of 12.4 hours) this is OK. Where people have compared these averages with averages of highs and lows over a month they agree within the noise.
"If tides rose and fell by precisely the same amount at precisely the same intervals, and high/low tide was held for only so long as any other point in the cycle, then regular readings would indeed give us a reasonable average."
The rise and fall is dictated mostly by astronomical forcing (that pesky gravity again). The rise/fall is fastest near the mean value, and there is a period of 'slack water' at each extreme.The pattern changes with time beause of the many sinusoids of different amplitude, phase and frequency that are added.You will see this if you go poking around in the NOAA web site and look at some tidal predictions over periods of a few months.
"But, what if the rate of rise/fall was slower near high tide than near low tide, or high tide as a value was held for longer than low tide? Wouldn’t this mean that our readings would have more higher values than lower values, and hence our average would be skewed to a higher value? Or vice versa, and thuse skewed to a lower value. And I would imagine that such an error would accumulate over time. "
See above comments.
"Is this an actual effect, and if so, has it been accounted for? or do I simply not understand statistical mechanisms."
What do you mean by statistical mechanisms? Most of us here are talking about physics.
As you said somewhere else, you don't understand tides very much. I responded to your (or was it someone else's - apologies if I've got this wrong, but I can't be bothered chasing back) much earlier comment on this (the one with the link to two graphs), but I don't think you understood the answer. As another commenter said a few posts back, it is wrong to compare tidal predictions for a few days then and a few days now because of the large variability in tidal ranges and signals through the various tidal cycles - most obviously the fortnightly spring/neap cycle.
Way back then you had the answer in front of you - you need to look at the residuals after removing the tidal predictions from the observed heights. Again, this was pointed out at the time.
On a related subject, I think the the main objection is to the use of the term 'aggressively' - the ocean is part of a complex coupled system with forcings on many different time scales. Unfortunately the 'aggressively yada yada yada' stuff has been used to justify (in one person's mind) completely erroneous ideas about how this all works, anf to justify using one source of information and ignore the many others that disagree with it.
While we're on this subject, can you tell us what the BPT (Billiard Table Principle) is? I'm not asking you to explain it, or justify it, just tell us what the hell it is. I'm afraid Spangly just pulled this one out of the air (or somewhere else). He was unable/unwilling to explain it.
There is no such thing as “equilibrium” in a system that is constantly subject to varying forces.
Right, but Loth and I tried to play along a bit by agreeing to eliminate all those forces for the sake of Dolt's "hypothetical". As Loth noted,
the simplified thought experiment is not physically possible – and certainly a lot different from Earth – so you can’t draw conclusions about Earth behaviour from it.
think the the main objection is to the use of the term ‘aggressively’
And "seek". The distribution of water cannot properly be accounted for in such teleological terms that invert causation. Each molecule of water is acted upon by a multiplicity of forces, and the consequences can be theoretically calculated per LaPlace. In the conception of SD, Chammy, and Dolt, if the oceans are heated causing them to rise in places, those higher water molecules will try to get to his river to even things out, and the fact that they didn't supposedly shows that the oceans didn't rise.
BFPM, 'honest seeker after truth', won't go to Tamino's where he'd be in reasonable danger of finding it.
Seems the most reasonable working assumption you've given us to date.
Also, Ianam is right; what you are demanding is a tautology. "Leave aside all the myriad factors that stop the oceans 'aggressively seeking' anything like a platonic equilibrium, then you must concede they'd 'aggressively seek' and attain a platonic equilibrium." Gibberish!
And utterly pointless! That is not the planet we live on, so we arrive at the counter-tautology that if we discount a sufficient number of the factors that make this the planet we live on then the result is something that does not resemble this planet. From which we can learn: see previous sentence. Rinse and repeat.
It's a kind of doofus Zen...
And you know, dear, we have this wonderful thing we call Google that was developed so that we could learn things for ourselves rather than playing at cuckoos and demanding loudly to be fed. Tide gauges now take their measurements every 6 minutes. Who'd a thunk it? How could you ever hope to get a reasonable average out of that kind of data?
And, wow, there's even a Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level. My, that's quite a collection of answers to FAQs! (Though they admittedly don't seem to have the one that goes 'have you ever considered that you don't know what you're doing? Perhaps you should contact them?) And links to even more answers! Joy!
Not much excuse for ongoing ignorance, then. Have at it!
Guess what they think the oceans are doing, incidentally?
Exactly. That's why I was trying to get chameleon to think about how one would use the broken concept of "aggressively seeking equilibrium" to calculate a number of the kind that SD was implying.
Do tell, BFPM. Inquiring minds want to know.
I wish I could put more time into the discussion/argument, because to be honest it's all good stuff. I don't like the crap that people like Wow and Ianam go on with, but at the same time I am thick skinned enough that you couldn't insult me no matter how hard you try. But believe me, on the forums I moderate you'd be gone.
As far as aggressive equilibrium etc goes, I don't know what to say. The concepts being expressed appear perfectly clear to me, but the various commenters like lotharsson and Bernard etc seem to want to twist the meaning by pretending that looseness of vocabulary implies looseness of thought.
I may not know the physics etc well enough, but I can certainly follow an argument and work stuff out well enough to get by.
The concept of aggressive equilibrium is clear. The terminology may be wrong. As for the BTP or whatever it is, i can't help as I don't quite see what that means.
As far as SD's actual claims go, I have sympathy for the idea. From everything I have so far read, it seems pretty clear that SLR is occurring. Perhaps not as significantly on the SE Qld coast as elsewhere, which, along with other factors raised, probably explains SD's observations. However, I still am of the opinion that if you have an accelerating SLR, it must become apparent in local conditions.
The example of Sandy has been used to suggest that effect, but my calculations above I think stand up. I would like to tackle Neil White's comments above but I can't due to insufficient free time.
Vince Whirlwind, you say: -- “Yes, but that 100 metres is the result of currents etc I would have thought? Absent those effects?”
No, it is largely the result of gravitational anomalies." --
But isn't the effect of gravity across the geoid less than that? This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ocean_dynamic_topography.jpg seems to imply a total topographic range of just a few metres. Apologies if I completely misunderstand what this depicts.
OK... not sure how to correlate the two wiki facts. the above, and this:
"The geoid surface is irregular, unlike the reference ellipsoid which is a mathematical idealized representation of the physical Earth, but considerably smoother than Earth's physical surface. Although the physical Earth has excursions of +8,000 m (Mount Everest) and −11,000 m (Mariana Trench), the geoid's total variation is less than 200 m (−106 to +85 m)[2] compared to a perfect mathematical ellipsoid.
If the ocean surface were isopycnic (of constant density) and undisturbed by tides, currents, or weather, it would closely approximate the geoid. If the continental land masses were criss-crossed by a series of tunnels or canals, the sea level in these canals would also very nearly coincide with the geoid. In reality the geoid does not have a physical meaning under the continents, but geodesists are able to derive the heights of continental points above this imaginary, yet physically defined, surface by a technique called spirit leveling."
But I guess that means that in my hypothetical, the actual sea surface would still vary considerably. So regardless of 'equilibrium', we might have differing levels at different places.
I don’t like the crap that people like Wow and Ianam go on with, but at the same time I am thick skinned enough that you couldn’t insult me no matter how hard you try. But believe me, on the forums I moderate you’d be gone.
The problem is that you haven't addressed any of my substance, you wanking tone trolling dishonest asshole ... so actually you're an incredibly thin-skinned coward. On a forum I moderated, you would be gone not because you said unpleasant words because you're the sort of ethically corrupt dishonest jerk that Loth described.
So, ianam, tell us what you really think.
Bill, you say: "And you know, dear, we have this wonderful thing we call Google that was developed so that we could learn things for ourselves rather than playing at cuckoos and demanding loudly to be fed. Tide gauges now take their measurements every 6 minutes. Who’d a thunk it? How could you ever hope to get a reasonable average out of that kind of data?"
I was not suggesting that the number of measurements were insufficient. I just posed a thought. If there were some imbalance in the tidal cycles but the measurements are regular, it stands to reason that you could get more measurements towards one extreme than the other.
hehehe... Ianam you are frothing again. C'mon now, you can do better than that. Try harder, I'll try to stop laughing long enough to read it.
As far as aggressive equilibrium etc goes, I don’t know what to say.
What you could say is what you think is wrong with all the objections posted about it, but you can't be bothered to even read them.
The concepts being expressed appear perfectly clear to me
Then what are they? Water is not aggressive nor does it seek anything, so what is being said? Or, if what is being said is just that literally, that water aggressively seeks equilibrium, then it is false.
the various commenters like lotharsson and Bernard etc seem to want to twist the meaning by pretending that looseness of vocabulary implies looseness of thought.
You are the one twisting things, clearly, because they aren't pretending anything. Water is acted on by forces; it doesn't "seek" anything and there is nothing "aggressive" about the flowing of fluids. There is a proper way to conceptualize these things in physical terms so indeed this is "looseness" ... and error of thought. That you can't grasp this is your problem ... it does not mean that someone else is "twisting" something.
The concept of aggressive equilibrium is clear.
Then what is it?? Explain what it means, not just by repeating the same words. And explain it in terms of physical processes ... if you can't, then it is wrong, regardless of how "clear" it may be.
The terminology may be wrong.
The concept is wrong because it is at odds with physical reality. Forces act on water; water does not "seek" anything. Sometimes people say "water finds its own level" but that's a consequence of physical law (under ideal conditions), it's not a principle from which one can derive something like global sea level equivalence.
But I guess that means that in my hypothetical, the actual sea surface would still vary considerably. So regardless of ‘equilibrium’, we might have differing levels at different places.
Then it's certainly true of the real Earth. Sheesh.
So summing up, Bolt and cham here are in furious agreement that SD's idiotic statements are, indeed rubbish.
Gravity is not the only force that affects the ocean levels and therefore there will be variation at locations of the local mean sea level.
This, they agree means that the mean sea level can be different at different places, making his local RIVER LEVEL records moot in the discussion about GLOBAL mean sea level trends.
If either you two clowns think this is wrong, then explain.
hehehe… Ianam you are frothing again. C’mon now, you can do better than that. Try harder, I’ll try to stop laughing long enough to read it.
While I have addressed all of your claims, you have still not addressed any of my substance. You can do better. Why shouldn't I froth at such a patently dishonest asshole like you?
So, when someone pointed you to measurements that showed some areas' sea levels falling a bit over almost two decades, it never occurred to you that your belief that "it must become apparent in local conditions" may need some more refinement before you can use it to try and draw inferences? Perhaps "it must eventually become apparent...", where eventually may be "certainly longer than 20 years, but you haven't checked exactly how long before must become applies"?
And if that (ahem) sinks in, then reconsider where it leaves your sympathy for SD's idea.
It's not a bad question.
But the question in response is "what property would the shape of the cyclic water level measurement curves have to have for that to occur?" Followed by: "is there any evidence that the shape of water level cycles have this property?"
Or even better: "How should measurements be taken in order to rule out the possibility of the kind of biases you are hypothesising?" and "Do scientists do this?"
"If I understand matters aright, without wind and currents the sea level would be at the geoid."
Nope.
You'd need to stop the world spinning. Flatten the sea floor. Have the ocean at thermal equilibrium (which means either turning off the sun or surrounding us with suns). Stop evaporation and precipitation. Stop river flows. Remove the moon. Then wait a few weeks.
And THEN it would be at the geoid.
'I feel a great imbalance in the Force'
Seriously - what would this mysterious 'imbalance in tidal cycles' be - and I can recommend Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy on this one - given that it's the moon and the sun and the earth and their well-understood elliptical orbits, and all repeated overandoverandover, and all that?
Well, the moon retreats all of 4cm a year, I suppose... And if you were only sampling every 6 minutes...
I also make no claims to know much about it all. Funnily enough, this hasn't led me to conclude that the people who've devoted their lives to it probably can't figure it all out...
I still am of the opinion that if you have an accelerating SLR, it must become apparent in local conditions.
Why should anyone care about your uninformed opinion that is counter to all the logic- and evidence-based arguments here? You have your opinion and you're going to stick to it ... which makes you a Dolt.
Or maybe you're saying that SD is a liar and that his river levels haven't really receded. Because the facts about SLR are established.
Bill, "Seriously – what would this mysterious ‘imbalance in tidal cycles’ be – and I can recommend Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy on this one – given that it’s the moon and the sun and the earth and their well-understood elliptical orbits, and all repeated overandoverandover, and all that?"
I don't know, I just innocently asked a question. What I was driving at is not that tides don't act according to physical forces, it was more that does the process of regular measurement introduce a systemic error? Here's what I mean, really simplified.
Tidal range from 1 metre to 5 metres. 10 measurements.
1,2,3,4,5,5,4,3,2,1 Average is 3
1,2,4,4,5,5,4,3,2,1 Average is 3.1
"think the the main objection is to the use of the term ‘aggressively’"
Also "LEVEL!!!!".
Why do they think that there's only one sea level therefore it's all level?
Because they don't even know what english is.
And for all his whining about "Answer my question" and other assorted bullshit, he's done a good track at avoiding the fact that on the same river the river LEVEL is very different along its length with respect to the geoid.
Maybe it's not called river level because it isn't level?
PS to Wow - and we'd be dead, assuming the world was stopped instantly, with the unhappy folks at the equator having been hurled about 11km into space before whatever's left falls back to Earth.
Then we end up with 1 bloody great northern ocean, and 1 southern ditto, with a bloody-great inhospitable land-mass in-between. So even then I strongly suspect the two seas would be at different levels... They certainly wouldn't 'seek' each other out.
The ocean equatorial bulge is 8km high. That's a mind-numbing amount of water...
That's a PS to Wow here, incidentally.
BfPM
"The concept of aggressive equilibrium is clear."
It's not clear to me. Please explain it.
"The terminology may be wrong."
OK - clarify it then.
"As for the BTP or whatever it is, i can’t help as I don’t quite see what that means."
Neither do we - but this is one of Spangly's gems, and you seem to be supporting him, so I though you might be able to tell us what it is. Again, please note, I'm not asking for an explanation or a proof, just tell us what it is.
"The concept of aggressive equilibrium is clear."
So write in a single post starting with "the concept of aggressive equilibrium is..." and containing ONLY that concept rather than your usual empty calorie posts.
"I don’t know, I just innocently asked a question"
Why have you asked these questions?
"What I was driving at is not that tides don’t act according to physical forces, it was more that does the process of regular measurement introduce a systemic error?"
No it doesn't.
Bolt and cham here are in furious agreement that SD’s idiotic statements are, indeed rubbish.
Gravity is not the only force that affects the ocean levels and therefore there will be variation at locations of the local mean sea level.
This, they agree means that the mean sea level can be different at different places, making his local RIVER LEVEL records moot in the discussion about GLOBAL mean sea level trends.
I note that neither have managed to say that this is incorrect.
And for all his whining about “Answer my question” and other assorted bullshit
That whining is from Dolt for PM. The idiocy about "that's what it's called sea LEVEL" was from Spangled Dunce (posted at Jennifer's). These trolls do have a lot of similarities, but they aren't quite interchangeable.
No, it was promulgated on here too. You'd need to go back a few pages to see it being done here.
It seems the idiots try their comedy act at a safer venue surrounded by a determinedly partisan crowd before trying it out in the real world.
This probably makes them think they have it right, since everyone there is fawning over how brilliant that piece of idiocy (whatever it might be: there's almost no chance of it being anything other than idiotic) is.
I had forgotten that the earth's crust would respond to the changed mass of water too, so you'd have to wait thousands of years. Which means you'd have to take into account continental drift too, so you'd ALSO have to stop plate tectonics.
And volcanoes.
And magma flows.
Neil White. Aggressive equilibrium. I'll have a go at explaining it as I understand it. Let's take the Pacific Ocean. Generally speaking, if there were no tides or currents or atmosphere, then the sea surface height would approximate the geoid.
So, it would be 'level' as far as it can be in the presence of the earth's gravitational field. If I added an extra 25% of volume at the far eastern edge, the sea surface height would increase locally. But over time, the sea would 'level' out to approximate the geoid, and the overall sea surface height would again exhibit a relative levelness. or to express it another way, the anomaly from the geoid would reduce back to a low threshold.
In the real world, there are myriad other forces acting. But, given enough time, any increase in volume should spread largely equally across the surface. So you'd still see various local effects from currents etc, but the sea surface height would exhibit the same relative anomaly to the geoid.
By extension then, one should see SLR exhibited at all locations, given enough time. How much time I don't know. Aggressive I think simply means that the time taken would not be long, geologically speaking. Would it be decadal? I think SD would say yes.
Billiard Table Principle. I think SD argues that as the anomaly from the geoid is less than 3 metres over the whole body, the actual degree of anomaly is very low. In other words, sea surface height is very 'level' relative to the anomaly. And thus, the sea surface's natural 'state' is to be level.
Going back to my earlier comment about regular measurement over tidal cycles, here's a representative list of times between peaks/troughs for The Battery over a few days:
5:12
6:24
7:00
6:12
5:30
6:06
7:12
6:00
6:06
5:36
You can see that regular 6 minute measurements means we would have more measurements in a 7 hour part cycle than there are in a 6 hour 12 minute part cycle.
So, right there it looked to me like we have something that skews the calculation of a mean. But perhaps over time these all average out. It was just a thought. It hurt at the time and luckily I'm back to my vacuous norm...
Perhaps they do! Please identify the factors creating any enduring trend in tidal cycles, bearing in mind that you'll have to explain its impact globally, petal. I've offered you 'the moon is retreating at 4cm a year', but I doubt that 's going to do much for you, frankly...
The universe is also expanding, I suppose, but given that even an object as large and as close as Jupiter's gravitational tug on us is about 1/20,000th of the moon's (IIRC) I doubt that all thos retreating objects are going to do much for you, either.
(If anyone you know is into astrology to might want to point out to them that the microwave in their kitchen is exerting considerably more force on them than any distant star. This could lead to a rather more interesting array of signs; 'Oh, I'm a Toaster Oven with a moon in Crockpot...)
Anyway, pet, where were we? Ah, yes, now all you have to do is demonstrate that no-one else has thought of whatever trend factors you identify or taken them into account. I shall have a lump in my throat as you step onto the Nobel dias, I really shall...
PS: 'Aggressively seeking equilibrium'; no, still gibberish, I'm afraid.
" In the real world, [...] given enough time, any increase in volume should spread largely equally across the surface,"
This is rubbish. Completely unwarranted assumption. If this is what you've been driving at for this long, then it's a shame to have taken you this long and still not realise why this is obviously wrong.
Bill, sweetie (do you mind if I call you sweetie?), anyway dollface, I did NOT claim any position and hence do not need to identify any factors or explain any impacts. Sweetpea, all I posed was a question, which to be perfectly honest sexybum, you've failed to respond to.
Can you point me to a single reference that explains how multiple regular measurements across varying cycles is accounted for, because, softlips me old china, every site I go to just talks about taking regular measurements of sea level and drawing an average from that. here is NOAA's definition of MSL: "The arithmetic mean of hourly heights observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch."
In my example above, that particular definition would, over the few days I offered up, give me a skewed result. So my little darling, where is something more referential than your own learned opinion?
OK Vince WillyWilly. Thought experiment. Sea level of Pacific Ocean is X. Add 25% volume. Wait 100 years. All things remaining equal, would you expect the sea level at any coastline around the Pacific to be the same, higher, or lower relative to its level before we added the extra water? If higher or lower, would the relative difference from the previous local sea level be largely similar, or quite different?
"No, it was promulgated on here too. You’d need to go back a few pages to see it being done here."
It was done here because quoted SD. Go back and check.
Just in case you're having trouble:
- Get one end of a 1m hollow tube filled with 1kg of gas and blocked off at the remote end
- Swing round and around reasonably quickly.
- Add 1kg of air and continue spinning
- Do you predict that 100g will be added to the furthest 10cm of the tube at the close end?
Sorry: It was done here because I quoted SD ... along with the link to his comment at Jennifer's.
Lightbulb moment yet, Bolt-fan?
Or will the dimwittery persist?
But over time, the sea would ‘level’ out to approximate the geoid, and the overall sea surface height would again exhibit a relative levelness. or to express it another way, the anomaly from the geoid would reduce back to a low threshold.
Oddly, there's no aggressiveness or seeking in your description. Gee, maybe those aren't actually the correct concepts.
Oops, there was a mention of "aggressive":
Aggressive I think simply means that the time taken would not be long, geologically speaking. Would it be decadal? I think SD would say yes.
Which is plainly not "aggressive", even by Loth's charitable interpretation as "rapid".
But really, it's not hard (for an intellectually honest person) to understand what SD means by aggressive: he means that water flows right away, as in your thought experiment with two columns of water separated by a seal. Too bad that this "aggressiveness" of water is not an attribute of water but is a naive interpretation placed on it ... in the real world, water is acted on by forces and, in the ocean, no such "aggressive" consequences occur.
BFPM, here's a free hint.
Condescension doesn't work when you don't know what you're talking about and especially when the person you address it to does.
Bonus free hint: why the heck do you think bill asked about enduring trends in tidal cycles?
You might start by asking yourself what the definition of a cycle is. Once you get that far you might start to think about Neil's point that tide levels are (largely) defined by the superimposition of a number of cycles of different periods. Then you might consider how long a period the scientists average over when measuring sea level - and why.
And if you have a moment for self-reflection, you might ponder why you haven't done any of this so far, despite being prompted several times already IIRC.
"Can you point me to a single reference that explains how multiple regular measurements across varying cycles is accounted for, because, softlips me old china, every site I go to...."
It's interesting that Bolt-fan's ignorance of the subject is projected as a failing on the part of the relevant experts in the field.
A few hints, maybe:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/what-determines-x-intercept-ie-zer…
BFPM could even crack a basic textbook on sampling theory.
Almost his entire schtick is predicated on one long argument from severe personal ignorance (and incompetence) - and projecting that on to people who have about 20 years of education before they can start doing their jobs, and once they start they generally have a whole bunch of very smart peers periodically reviewing their work.
What really galls me is the likes of Bolt-fan who spend 3 hours on some denier-blog in order to form their ideas, casting aspersions on clever people who work full-time on this stuff, and have done so for decades of their life.
I know one guy who has spent the last 18 months working full-time on his PhD in a very narrow area related this subject.
Idiots like Bolt-fan seem to believe that if something cannot be explained to them in 60 seconds, then that something must be wrong.
Utterly clueless.
I just read someone writing on physicist Sean Carroll's blog that no one understands gravity, and when Sean said he does and that he had written a book about it, the guy demanded that he explain it to him then and there.
What's particularly interesting is the reaction of people who (seem to frequently) think that maybe a whole load of highly educated and frequently peer-reviewed scientists have missed something so obvious that they themselves could come up with it in a few hours of "thinking", when they themselves are subject the faintest blog-approximation of something a little bit like peer review.
They protest like mad, throw in a whole bunch of additional fallacies and irrelevancies - and assert that the review isn't just wrong, but is invalid.
Wouldn't last five minutes as a research scientist.
ianam - yep that's BFPM's schtick in a nutshell.
Exactly.
Look, soldier, run over to Tamino's and tell him you've identified the fundamental flaw in the statistical method; i.e that no-one's as smart as you.
I know it's a long way from your geriatric colonel blimp peers, and that there's considerable danger of your being made to look a supreme ass (the likelihood of which is greatly increased because...), but if you actually had the courage of your convictions, and any real desire to learn, you'd do it.
So you won't.
Thank you for the opportunity to humiliate you in a public forum by way of being an example, but you are becoming rather tedious now.
Would that be the same "looseness of vocabulary" that you are now employing to imply that I'm significantly engaging in the equilibrium side-show? I've hardly mentioned it: my target is Drongo's ridiculous claims in the face of a mountain of contradictory fact.
However, if you want to accuse me now of assuming that any "that looseness of vocabulary implies looseness of thought" on your part, then go ahead, because I am definitely thinking it now.
And I note that neither you nor Drongo has yet been able to demonstrate why the factors I repeatedly list do not invalidate Drongo's silliness about rising global sea level.
"The concepts being expressed appear perfectly clear to me"
Then you should be able to clearly express them to demonstrate what this aggressive seeking of level means.
If you can't then either you don't understand them or you suck at explaining.
Blot.
Just to reiterate, I vehemently dispute your claim that I am involved in the "aggresive equilibrium" red herring of a conversation. If you think I'm an active participant please link to my posts that apparently reflect this, and compare them to the general body of commentary focussed in this distraction.
I want to see just what my index of "meaning twisting" really is...
“Can you point me to a single reference that explains how multiple regular measurements across varying cycles is accounted for"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errors_and_residuals_in_statistics
"Aggressive I think simply means that the time taken would not be long, geologically speaking"
So thousands or millions of years, then.
” In the real world, [...] given enough time, any increase in volume should spread largely equally across the surface,”
So explain why the air pressure isn't equal across the entire surface of the earth and point to ANY period when this was true.
"So, right there it looked to me like we have something that skews the calculation of a mean."
That's because you want it to be there.
Imagining something is what even the moron can manage with ease.
Indeed the major difference between a moron and an intelligent human being here is that the moron will not change their mind about what they imagine.
I wonder - is air even more "aggressive" than water, seeing as it is more fluid?
So perhaps, "aggressive" air-equilibrium-seeking will occur much faster than aggressive-water-equilibrium-seeking?
Instead of being on "quick" "geologically-speaking" timescales, maybe it will occur on even quicker historical timescales, like maybe it would only take a few thousands of years for all barometer readings in the world to "equalise"?
Fucking retard.
Aggressive I think simply means that the time taken would not be long, geologically speaking. Would it be decadal? I think SD would say yes.
Which is plainly not “aggressive”, even by Loth’s charitable interpretation as “rapid”.
But really, it’s not hard (for an intellectually honest person) to understand what SD means by aggressive: he means that water flows right away
Actually, I think I was over-generous to Stupid Dipshit there. The most natural interpretation of "water aggressively seeks equilibrium" is "water tries really hard to reach equilibrium". Of course this has no correspondence with reality.
Dolt for PM says that the concept is clear, and yet when asked to explain, he says he thinks it means ... well, that water takes however long it takes to reach equilibrium.
These cretins remind me of a clip from a Chris Matthews show where some Tea Party git was screaming "Obama is a communist!" so he walked over to her and asked her what a communist is. She laughed and said "Don't you know what a communist is?" and he said he wanted her to tell him what she thought a communist is. She said "Everyone knows what a communist is!" and he asked her again to explain it in her own words. Over and over again, without her ever able to say anything about what being a communist was other than repeating the word. Finally she said "Obama hates America!"
Dolt and Chammy and SD are just like her.
This thread has been going for ... how long now? And none of them has been able to supply a definition for the important terms in their claims with enough precision that it can be tested.
It's really the prime gambit - deniability of counterfactuality through vagueness.
Vagueness is a natural consequence of ignorance.
The Australian has a done a very good job of teaching these barbarians that Opinion trumps Fact.
Bolt for PM --- In the bad old precomputer days somebody had to go out to read the tide gauge. Possibly one can devise a maximum and a minimum indicator so that the overnight tides could be read in the daylight. Nowadays almost all tide gauges are fully automated; reading every 6 minutes is good enough for the 12.4 hour (nominal) tidal cycle.
Wow & everybody else: The geoid takes into account the fact that Terra is rotating. It can be defined as the local departure from the reference ellipsoid to obtain a gravitational equipotential surface.
At some locations the actual sea height anomaly, the height above or below the geoid in that location, exceeds 100 meters. That is not the same as the variations in elevation measured from the center of Terra.
"Wow & everybody else: The geoid takes into account the fact that Terra is rotating."
It doesn't. The coasts cause buildup because it is "leading" the ocean. The rock is constrained to exactly the speed of rotation of the earth at that time. The ocean is less rigid.
It's a very similar problem as trying to walk with a full cup and not spill any.
O course, that effect isn't 100m!
Wow --- I stated that quite poorly. Pretend Terra is not rotating but the solid portions still retain the current shape. The liquid and gaseous portions then come to equilibrium. Now take the equipotential surface; that is the goid.
It's hard to keep things well said when there's so much dumb being dropped around.
Until the clowns start defining things so that people outside their head can read what they're thinking and work off that, keep things black and white.
Rotating earth causes the oceans to be always lagging the earth's rotation and the coasts turn that into a difference in sea levels at different places on the costs of the earth.
Wow --- I suppose, but the coriolis effect on ocean currents shoves water up onto western boundaries of oceans. I suppose that is the same.
It is also the case that the rotation causes the oceans to be well above the geoid around the equator (up to 110+ meters) and well below in polar regions (-80 meters).
Gosh, you overcomplicate things. Spangly has a photo of a stone wall on the river near his house and that simple photo is all you need to know about sea level everywhere, as Bolt's been trying to explain to us.
In the harbor wall of the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_of_Louisbourg
(which was constructed mostly around 1730 CE) there is an iron ring intended to tie up small craft. A bit difficult to do that now as the combination of isostactic adjustment and SLR places the ring oft under the water.
David Benson: "It is also the case that the rotation causes the oceans to be well above the geoid around the equator (up to 110+ meters) and well below in polar regions (-80 meters)."
Can you point me to a reference for this? I am not claiming this is in error, but from what I read, the general departure from the geoid is less than 2 metres. The geoid itself varies over that 200 metres, but sea surface height pretty closely matches that, even with currents etc.
PS, to avoid any unnecessary flaming, I am NOT claiming anything nor pretending I know better. It's just that what David states is contrary to what I have found in reading about sea surface height and geoid, so I need clarification. There must be an extra dimension to this beyond what I have read.
This whole thing about the geoid is a red herring. Spangly brought it in to make it look like he knew what he was talking about by pulling in some techy sounding stuff.
For the purpose of this discussion it is irrelevant. We're talking about (or, at least, trying to talk about) sea level CHANGE. For that it doesn't matter what reference you use, as long as it is stable. You could use the centre of the Earth, an ellipsoid (e.g. WGS84) or a series of local benchmarks whose vertical position is measured by GPS.
This is confusing because different communites (Geophysics, Geodesy and GIA) use slightly different definitions (the differences being mainly in how much stuff (e.g. currents) you want to stop.
The geoid is, effectively, the shape of the Earth in a gravitational sense, and the mean sea surface (whichever definition you use) is close (order of a metre or so) to the geoid. Early satellite altimeter missions (e.g. GEOS-3 and GEOSAT) were put up there to measure the shape of the Earths's gravity field by measuring sea-surface height. GEOSAT was put up by the US Navy so that they could better navigate their nuclear submarines (variations in the gravity field can affect the inertial navigation systems), and it is also important to know the local meaning of 'up' when you' want to launch a missile to land on Moscow.
There is no simple latitudinal signal. There is a thumping great hole south of India (in the tropics) and highs in the Indonesian region and the North Atlantic.
Let's get back to what has become the true point of this thread - Spangly bashing :-)
"Can you point me to a reference for this?"
Or, in other words: "I don't want to believe you therefore I'll make you work hard for your temerity to know things, YOU BASTARD!!!!".
Ever thought of FUCKING CHECKING YOURSELF YOU TWAT?
What? The internet doesn't work for you? Google is banned?
No, you just prefer it not to be true. Therefore you'll want someone to do some work so that they'll not bother to know things in front of you where your ego will be bruised.
I hope your job doesn't involve interaction with others Wow, because you'd be a right dipshit to have to work with. With any luck you are kept well away from the other kids. And no pointy objects for you.
And my mum and dad WERE married. Well... I think so anyway. But you never know, do you.
I hope your job doesn't involve thinking, Bolt, because you'd be a right dipshit to have to get to do any work.
With any luck, you are kept well away from sharp (or indeed any) implements lest you damage yourself with them.
And no point to paying you.
Your mom and your dad were sisters. Well, you don't know anyway, but they could be. I'm just asking if you have any proof they aren't.
Tell me, what's it like to be so stupid, bot?
I think it must be like being colour blind. You walk around knowing deep down something is missing, but you're just unable to work out what it is.
But you know in your heart that life has played a huge practical joke on you, and are desperately trying to find someone to blame for it.
New post on sea level rise on Realclimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/sea-level-rise-wh…
Neil White, I believe you have agreed with me above by noting that mean sea
level largely matches the geoid. This was SD's point. You asked earlier what the
BTP was and that is it. That, relatively speaking, the difference between the
MSL and the geoid is extremely small which makes the sea surface very very
'level'.
If this is so today, then it would seem that any additional volume added over
the past say 150 years due to thermal expansion or glacial melt etc must have,
over that time, been spread relatively equally over the total area.
Hence, the ocean's 'aggressively seek equilibrium'. Far from being a red
herring, the BTP is integral to his case. And that is that, again over time (his
case is 50 years or 70 years or whatever it was), we should expect to see SLR at
every location because the oceans are 'aggressively level'.
However I guess I'd have to observe that in terms of arguing his case, it
probably IS a red herring. And it is the departure from the geoid that tells us
that. MSL as a value includes any SLR. If SLR varies from location to location,
we could presumably have sea level fall, no change, and sea level rise.
Given that the graph at the head of this post indicates 250mm of SLR over 150
odd years, then that 250mm fits well within the range of the departure from the
geoid - those 2 metres or so. I don't think anyone has shown that the departures
from the geoid are over time the same amounts for the same locations, although
perhaps they are.
Maybe I am a bit dim, but one would need a lot of data to measure local
variations from the geoid over time, factor in all possible local forces, and
then identify whether SLR is a contributing factor or not.
An easier way would be to look at tide gauges and draw some measures of sea
level change from them. Or from satellites.
So unless I completely misunderstand both SD's BTP and also just what MSL's
relationship is to the geoid, I don't think it provides any argument for SLR
having to be equal everywhere.
The sea IS very level and the local variation of MSL from the geoid is very
small on the scale of a billiard table, however the range of variation added so
far by SLR is smaller again and fits within that range.
Which brings us back to the question of why SD's personal benchmarks do not show
significant change. I take the points about local factors but I still think it
is unlikely they could so effectively just so happen to mask an SLR of around
what, 150mm based on a global average? However, from what I can see of tide gauge data for that area, the actual amount of SLR is far less than 150mm.
This plot for Bundaberg offers us a rise of just 0.25mm/yr over the period from 1966. I call that largely level.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml…
This plot for my local gauge appears largely level or even declining for the range 1986-2006, though this has changed recently.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/2073.php
Brisbane Bar shows a similar trend to Urangan, and Gold Coast too.
So... I guess SLR is NOT happening with any great effect along the SE Qld coast. But I don't think that the BTP suggests that the same effect is likely everywhere else.
"Neil White, I believe you have agreed with me above by noting that mean sea
level largely matches the geoid"
Yup, more "world of imagination" from our most recent Willy Wonka. Do you know how big the earth is? 110m difference on that is "largely matches".
Try letting something called "maths" into your world.
"This was SD’s point."
No it wasn't. But it is expected that Willy will remember what he'd like to have been the case.
Seriously, go back and this time READ spanking donkey's posts. You obviously have not to date.
"So unless I completely misunderstand both SD’s BTP and also just what MSL’s"
You do.
"Which brings us back to the question of why SD’s personal benchmarks do not show significant change."
Have you cut and pasted all this bollocks, hence the odd line breaks?
The reason why his personal benchmarks do not show significant change is because he SELECTED the benchmark that would do so.
This is called "cherry picking".
In short, the reason why is because the sea level changes markedly from the average over the earth's coasts.
If you need proof, then go look at the data from all ports in the world.
See the differences.
BFPM; instead of wittering on with your obsessive desire to lay out your incomprehension beyond danger of refutation by 'proving' that there's some merit in the odious SD's ludicrous assertion - though you're free to waste your life how you like, I suppose - why have you not gone over to Tamino's to lay out your earth-shaking revelation of the flaws in the statistical method?
Because at the moment, you're a puff-adder: you're just farting in the bath and counting the bubbles. ;-)
Well, we know why you haven't, but I wouldn't want the lurkers to forget that given the opportunity to put your 'Honest Seeker After Truth' routine to the test and consult one of the world's most eminent statisticians, you - appropriately enough - simply bolt.
Maybe I am a bit dim
Darn, strikeout doesn't work. But it's implied by Dolt's ongoing defense of SD's assertion that water tries really hard to reach equilibrium.
You know, one intriguing thing about most of you clowns is that you have a particularly confrontational style. So, just in the interests of stimulating some more mouth foaming, here's a few little offerings for you to foam about.
1. Bill, I have not at any time made any claim about any statistical matters, no earth shaking revelations. Please produce one sentence of evidence for that. I did however pose a question in the interests of honest 'truth-seeking', one that sprang from my thoughts about the question of sea level rise. See, I'm just a regular honest Joe. I do so sincerely apologise if someone so far below your exalted heights of intellectual capacity should actually give the matter some thought rather than just accepting what you say. Jerk.
2. Wow, yes I cut and pasted. Because my clumsy fingers often cause my little notebook to do something unexpected and I lose a long, lovingly crafted masterpiece of insightful commentary. So I write in Notepad and copy. Sue me. Dipshit.
3. Wow, you say: "Yup, more world of imagination from our most recent Willy Wonka. Do you know how big the earth is? 110m difference on that is largely matches." Well, this is an easy one. I freely admit my recent very brief readings of the matter may have been completely misinterpreted. So, either what i said is wrong, or it is right. Which is it?
So, answer me a question. "To what extent does the Mean Sea Level depart from the geoid".
Frankly, I have no idea other than what I read. And what I read says:
"the geoid's total variation is less than 200 m (−106 to +85 m) compared to a perfect mathematical ellipsoid" and
"To extend this definition far from the sea means comparing the local height of the mean sea surface with a "level" reference surface, or datum, called the geoid. In a state of rest or absence of external forces, the mean sea level would coincide with this geoid surface, being an equipotential surface of the Earth's gravitational field. In reality, due to currents, air pressure variations, temperature and salinity variations, etc., this does not occur, not even as a long term average. The location-dependent, but persistent in time, separation between mean sea level and the geoid is referred to as (stationary) ocean surface topography. It varies globally in a range of ± 2 m."
I read that to mean that the variation of MSL from 'level' is not much at all...
All of which means that our plucky little oceans DO try ever so hard, bless their little cotton socks, to reach a state of zen-like equilibrium.
Hence the deep affinity with the sea that so many of us experience, that overwhelming urge to be at one with the great Deep and to float blissfully in its Nirvana. Except when it's rising too fast for personal safety.
Now, c'mon, BFPM - don't be disingenuous.
Now, it's been pointed out to you several times, that you could get answers to these questions, if it were the case that you were actually seeking them.
But your 'JAQ the Seeker After Truth' routine is a pile of shite, Bolty. Thanks for making that clear to the lurkers.
you have a particularly confrontational style
Yes, we confront lying bullshitting dishonest trolls who are helping to destroy human civilization.
Bolt for PM --- I provided a link a few days ago. A web search for 'departure sea level geoid' ought to work.
Neil White --- No, sea level departs quite dramatically from the geoid. View that as a defect in the definition of geoid if you will.
Another possible convention is to use sea level on a rotating body, but absent of winds and currents. The actual sea level departs from that convention by at most 0.5 meter.
All of which means that our plucky little oceans DO try ever so hard, bless their little cotton socks, to reach a state of zen-like equilibrium.
No, cretin, it means no such thing, and if it did, it would be wrong, because oceans do not and cannot try to do anything.
Hence the deep affinity with the sea that so many of us experience, that overwhelming urge to be at one with the great Deep and to float blissfully in its Nirvana.
All this snark does is confirm that "water aggressively seeks equilibrium" is idiotic crap that has nothing to do with how the world actually works.
"All of which means that our plucky little oceans DO try ever so hard, bless their little cotton socks, to reach a state of zen-like equilibrium.
See the difference one word of reality (reality being in a forever dynamic state) makes to your little sugar cube house and the moronic point you seem to want agreement with?
All of which means that our plucky little oceans DO try ever so hard, bless their little cotton socks, to reach a state of * unachievable * zen-like equilibrium.
See the difference one word of reality (reality being in a forever dynamic state) makes to your little sugar cube house and the moronic point you seem to want agreement with?
(Sorry for duplication, but my emphasis arrows deleted the key word in my last post. Didn't know HTML would do that.
Hell, deniertards, remember the "WHY DO THEY CALL IT SEA *LEVEL*, HUH???".
I note that despite you insisting you know what he's going on about, you don't seem to know what he is going on about.
If he was just saying "it sort of is level", then why does he make such a song-and-dance about "they call it sea LEVEL"?
Oh, I get it, you don't actually give a shit.
" So, either what i said is wrong, or it is right. Which is it?"
Wrong.
"So, answer me a question. “To what extent does the Mean Sea Level depart from the geoid”."
Nearly 200m.
"I read that to mean that the variation of MSL from ‘level’ is not much at all…"
I'm afraid I can't do anything about your reading skills. They just plain suck.
Here is a good discussion of SL, geoid, and ellipsoid. Don't get the last two confused.
* unachievable *
If water molecules were intentional agents in control of their own motions, they might be able to achieve it ...
Oops, here is the first page.
You also have isostatic rebound.
Another reason why "Why is my carefully chosen location not showing sea level rise".
Of course, this is also along with other such problems as
Not being the sea.
Not being the mean level but a peak tide height.
Changed upstream changing inflow and outflow.
Changed downstream (ditto).
And many, many more.
Bill: "Now, c’mon, BFPM – don’t be disingenuous."
I'm not Bill. I raised a question, which I think makes sense for someone who has no background in statistics. The various versions of the question were to clarify what I had asked, because no-one seemed to me to be answering the actual question. I then read your links and did not understand them. So, I have accepted that I don't and can't know enough to answer my own question and must take at face value the responses that say it is all accounted for. So I've happily moved on. Your blather about making eath shaking claims or whatever is the bee in your bonnet is just blather.
Wow: -- "So, answer me a question. “To what extent does the Mean Sea Level depart from the geoid”.
Nearly 200m."
OK, so why does Wiki say that it is just a few metres? The geoid itself varies by 200 metres. I posted the quotes from Wikipedia above. That's not me saying it, it's wikipedia. So, it's wrong?
Read Description here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level
and Difficulties in Utilization here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level
Now, must pop out for a latte, carry on chaps.
oops sorry
Read Description here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid
and Difficulties in Utilization here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level
"OK, so why does Wiki say that it is just a few metres?"
Why do you go to Wikipedia to find out a science question?
If you believe what the Wiki says on a subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
" I raised a question, which I think makes sense for someone who has no background in statistics. "
Why did you raise the question?
Is the reason to ask that question so it would be answered?
Use 'del', not 'strike'.
No, it was not.
The BTP was "the ocean, relatively speaking (vertical variations divided by horizontal extent), is very very flat - much flatter than a billiard table. Therefore, since it is relatively very flat, absolute sea levels must, must, must rise everywhere at pretty much the same rate". And if that were true (and SD asserted it), it must follow from his "sea level" measurements half way up a river that there is no sea level rise anywhere on the globe and all the measurements that show it are a pack of lies produced by mooching government scientists in order to create panic and line their own pockets...or something.
In other words it was a ludicrous attempt to assert constraints (without any evidence) on rates of vertical change of sea level, merely by noting the instantaneous vertical variations in sea level were small relative to the large area of the oceans and then applying fallacious and innumerate "logic".
In BFPM's defense, some of the earlier material that was posted here - not just Wikipedia - also said that mean sea level only departs from the geoid by a couple of metres.
'Strike' does work, but strikeout doesn't.
(Some blog standardisation would be great.)
Even that esri.com article appears to match that earlier material - and BFPM's understanding. The "100m" departures near India and Indonesia that it mentions are the departures of the reference geoid (which is not the same as the hypothetical geoid) from the reference ellipse.
This is a different metric to the departures of MSL from the (reference or hypothetical) geoid.
Yes; my comment about geoid vs. ellipsoid was directed at someone other than BFPM.
Exactly Lotharsson. From what I read, the geoid is a referential surface implied by gravitational measurement. Every local point on the geoid is exactly perpendicular to gravity at that point and is thus exactly level from the reference frame of earth's gravity.
Without local effects of currents and tides and winds etc, the mean sea level would be pretty much the same, thus water seeks equilibrium, that is, it levels according to gravity's influence.
Local effects however do cause some displacement from the geoid, but these are not more than 2 metres globally.
So, nowhere does MSL vary from the geoid by 100 metres or whatever - it is the geoid that varies from the ellipsoid in response to gravitational variation.
Thus, the sea level, with effects included, varies extremely little from the geoid. SD argues that the variation, at the scale of the geoid, is extremely small and less than the variation on a billiard table's surface.
So, it seems perfectly sensible to assume that as water responds to gravity by levelling, any increase in volume must, over time, broadly equalise.
If I am wrong in my understanding of the geoid and MSL, explain how, please.
"So, it seems perfectly sensible to assume that as water responds to gravity by levelling, any increase in volume must, over time, broadly equalise".
Even as someone with little knowledge of the field - fluid dynamics - on the face of it this is a low point even for BFPM.
How can 'equilibrium' ever be attained on a rotating planet with an exterior heat source, two interacting fluid layers (each incorporating some markedly different properties) and irregular land masses?
How can BFPM & Co. possibly imagine their homely armchair brainal chunterings on something they demonstably know nothing about and have no data for (apart from stories and chat) matches the measured, empirical real world?
water seeks equilibrium, that is, it levels according to gravity’s influence.
As I said before, water no more seeks equilibrium than apples seek to hit Newton on the noggin.
Water covering a body with a highly varying gravitational field will have a highly varying vertical contour ... so much for "leveling" and "equilibrium".
Ignoring all other factors (forces), water tends to conform to the geoid ... it doesn't "seek to", certainly not "aggressively", which is why, when you add in those other factors, it fails to.
SD argues that the variation, at the scale of the geoid, is extremely small and less than the variation on a billiard table’s surface.
No, SD states that. What he argues is that therefore, if the water level at his river reference point hasn't risen, then neither has global sea level.
So, it seems perfectly sensible to assume that as water responds to gravity by levelling, any increase in volume must, over time, broadly equalise.
You do understand that assuming your conclusion is a fallacy, don't you?
The question is, is it perfectly sensible to conclude that in the face of SD's observations that appear to contradict it. How do you explain the discrepancy?
Oh, and how much time, and how did you arrive at the answer? We know that the reason that SD stuck the word "aggressively" in there was specifically to shore up his argument that there's no SLR.
‘Strike’ does work, but strikeout doesn’t.
I didn't literally mean "strikeout"; I used the "s" tag. In the future I'll try s del.
To the extent that one might argue that "water seeks equilibrium", it only does so when ALL of the forces acting on it are (a) accounted for and (b) unchanging (or very slowly changing). As (Wow? and ianam?'s) earlier discussion pointed out that includes forces other than gravity - including forces that arise because the earth is spinning - and because the oceans are not at uniform temperature, and because warming and cooling of oceans vary with (say) the annual seasons, and ... you get the picture.
There cannot be equilibrium on Earth - so any serious discussion about what there actually is on Earth that uses a mental model of "equilibrium" MUST also factor in the understanding that the mental model is an approximation and reality deviates from it. (SD refuses to do this with his own mental model which is one trick he uses to deceive himself.)
Look, I can live with as a simplification for basic understanding as long as:
a) it is caveated by all of the earlier points about multiple forces that never actually disappear on Earth, so it isn't used for making detailed inferences.
b) "broadly" and "over time" are suitably defined.
On (a) when SD makes that kind of claim, he does not accept the caveats but then goes on to assert detailed inferences that are trivially undermined when one includes the caveats. He's using the sophistry of arguing from a simplified model as if it were the full picture - and when people point out the full picture has bits that undermine his argument he's jumping up and down insisting that the simplification is accurate.
On (b), for example, "broadly" for SD seems to mean "practically identical everywhere", despite copious counter-evidence. It's the only way he can make his "argument" that local sea levels imply no global sea level rise. The measurements say otherwise so he builds a mental model simplified so that the measurements violate the model and then throws out the measurements. (This model also requires that thousands of people who've spent a couple of decades in education just to get to the start of their professional endeavours are all horribly incompetent. That alone should be a red flag...)
Strike does work? If so that's interesting - it didn't work not long after the site switch.
Let's step back a bit. I have never claimed SD is right, I just said I saw his point logically. It might be completely unrealistic. Now someone asked me to explain his idea. I am doing. Not trying to argue it's right or claim it for my own.
Now, here's some basic facts. Please, someone answer each with references if need be.
1. The geoid is a referential surface calculated from direct measurements of gravity.
2. The geoid varies in response to gravity and its actual surface height varies as much as 200 metres.
3. Each point on the geoid is perpendicular to earth's gravity at that point.
4. Mean sea level, absenting such effects as tides, currents, winds and so on, would generally conform to the topography of the geoid.
5. This means, if we consider each point (or location or place for the pedantic), the geoid is 'level' in respect to gravity at that place.
6. Mean Sea Level as calculated diverges from the geoid however this divergence is within a narrow range, typically +/- 2 metres (exact number here are unimportant to the concept).
7. Would MSL exhibit this same topography, or levelness, had we been able to measure it at 1870, 1930, 1980 or 2010?
That's not an aggressive challenge. It's me trying to see if I have it right. That is how I understand it from what I read. If that is incorrect, please point me to the references that show me that.
Except that it is easy to verify that it conflicts with known evidence, which is, well, a tad illogical, no? That's part of why people were objecting. Logic that is not grounded in evidence is quite fine in some fields of inquiry, but useless - or even outright misleading - in the physical sciences.
Roughly speaking, as I understand it, 1-6 are not bad.
1) Depends which version of the geoid you are referring to. The measured one used to be inferred using sea level measurements but I believe there are newer measured geoids obtained via satellites.
2) Depends what you mean by "actual surface height". I presume you mean "height as measured from the reference ellipsoid" in which case that matches my understanding.
3) Strictly speaking it is the surface at each point of the theoretical geoid that is perpendicular to the gravitational field at that point. (You'll need that "surface" vs "point" distinction at (5) - a point cannot be level all on its ownsome.)
In practice I suspect the deviations from perpendicular on any particular measured version of the geoid would be very small.
4) This one is tricky, but roughly speaking mean sea level used to be the operational definition for measuring the geoid, so it's probably close enough for most purposes.
5) Yep. That's the definition of the theoretical geoid. A measured one isn't going to exactly match, but it should be pretty close.
6) From what I've seen that's about right.
7) Off the top of my head I don't know. One would have to either find measurements or understand the forces involved with enough precision to figure out whether there would be any significant variation in the divergences over those timeframes.
Not trying to argue it’s right
How soon you forget your own posts.
So, in conclusion, if the high-tide mark 7km up a river hasn't changed in the course of about 6 ad-hoc observations over 50 years, we can conclude that there's been no change to mean sea level anywhere else on the planet during that period?
I'm just trying to see if I have it right.
If that's incorrect, please reassure me that nobody is really this stupid.
Let’s step back a bit.
In other words, let's ignore all the counterarguments so that you can avoid acknowledging being wrong.
I just said I saw his point logically
Even though it has been refuted.
Look, if you're actually interested in a discussion, you would be better off to stop being such a jerk and admit that SD's "aggressively" is bullshit, as you have completely failed to provide any rationale for it or any reasonable meaning of it ... your "geological time" comment obviously doesn't qualify. And then instead of this teleological "seeks equilibrium" crap you could substitute "tends to equalize" or "tends to conform to the geoid" ... the major difference being that this is a result of gravity acting on the water, rather than a "principle" that, in the idiotic words of chameleon, is "overriding". On the contrary, we all understand that tendencies are overridable. That gets us away from SD's propagandistic "aggressively seeks" and his intellectually dishonest inferences from it.
BfPM:
"Every local point on the geoid is exactly perpendicular to gravity at that point and is thus exactly level from the reference frame of earth’s gravity."
A point (local or otherwise) can't be perpendicular to anything. A line or vector can be perpendicular to something. At each point on the geoid the local normal to the geoid is in the direction of local gravitational force (or 'down' or 'up' - the sign doesn't matter). The satellite altimeter measures of the geoid measure the slope of the geoid. These days this is integrated wth data from various other satelites, such as the GOCE gravity mission, and also ship-based gravity data.
Jumping to another message:
"7. Would MSL exhibit this same topography, or levelness, had we been able to measure it at 1870, 1930, 1980 or 2010?"
NO - because the estimate of MSL is, necessarily, from some collection of data over some range of years, the derived geoid (inappropriately compared to a billiard table in some circles) will vary depending on the time span of the data that is used in calculating the particular realisation of it. This is what blows the BTP right out of the water.
This is what some of us here have been trying to get through - the MSL patterns (and hence the estimates of the geoid based on them) change depending on the time span that the mean is calculated over. That the patterns change is indisputable. It shows very clearly in the satellite altimeter data and also (over longer time spans) in the tide gauge data. Just becaue one point (even if it was on the ocean) shows very little rise over some period, it doesn't mean that there is no rise elsewhere, or that the mean has to be the same as at the single point.
Neil, you missed your chance to spruik this most excellent Australian perspective on recent sea level changes, which seekers-of-knowledge could go to for information:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
:)
...and I guess I should apologise for unwittingly assisting Bolt in creating the Geoid red herring confusathon by mentioning that sea level was shaped by gravitational anomalies.
I also tried to distract him with earth-tides but he didn't bite on that one.
Look at the lines in Figure 2 of
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/sea-level-rise-wh…
The four different methods of combining tide gauge data, while in fairly close agreement, certainly exhibit differences.
Find "All reconstructions to a different extent are affected by spurious variability that is not real variability in global sea level." and read the rest of that paragraph.
Can anyone who is not SD really maintain anything else at this point? BFPM has this habit of saying 'well, I'm not at all saying that that isn't true, I just think that SD has a point.'
If there's still a present tense component of the last phrase then BFPM's position is an oxymoron. Just like this one from the 8th seems to be:
Unless we regard the last sentence as a statement of the bleeding obvious thrown in for decoration it appears to represent an irritatingly woolly and simultaneously contradictory belief that SD's river marker just might prove the oceans ain't rising after all. Even though it doesn't.
That. Is. Simply. Wrong. That science is settled.
But if BFPM's position now is 'I thought SD had a point, but now I know better' then we can stop debating the number of angels that may dance on the head of a pin and move on with our lives.
bill --- Did we settle the number of angels?
:-)
67, wasn't it? 42?
Quick research reveals the, ahem, 'correct' answer is 'an infinity', them being non-corporeal entities, and all.
And also revealed the source of this particular satirical quirk:
'We could sit around all day debating whether there are excrements in Paradise' - now, that's got a ring! :-)
OK chaps, so we've established that my simplistic definitions of geoid and MSL and variations thereof are 'correct' and substantially more accurate than the concept expressed here by those who claim that the variation of sea level relative to the geoid measure in the 10s or 100s of metres.
I read that in some way not well understood by me, the MSL is the actual defining property for settling on just which geoid we are describing. In fact, the geoid is derived from a theoretical fluid body responding to gravity. This theoretical geoid can be referred to as the reference ellipsoid.
The actual geoid then derived from a closer examination of gravitational variation on the real earth varies from the reference ellipsoid, which as we've seen is largely smooth. This variation is in the order of 100-200 metres (depends on literature source it seems).
Nonetheless, the critical point here is that in a sense it is MSL itself that defines which geoid and ellipsoid we will use, which means that the geoid is clearly derived from the response of a fluid bopdy to gravity and hence it doesn't matter when we measure things to derive our surfaces (gravity and physics being generally the same over short time scales).
Here is a nice quote that encapsulates this concept:
"The geoid is a “horizontal” or “level” surface, a surface which is everywhere perpendicular to the local direction of gravity. If there were no waves or currents in the ocean,it is where the sea surface would eventually settle in equilibrium."
So, in regards to 7 above "Would MSL exhibit this same topography, or levelness, had we been able to measure it at 1870, 1930, 1980 or 2010?", the answer is YES, because it is the properties of the fluid response to gravity that defines the geoid. Thus, unless some special effects have occurred and normal physics have not always applied, the dynamic topography should not differ substantially over a mere 150 years. The actual geoid undulations may vary in location and scale,but I cannot see how MSL variations from that topography would be different over time.
Your opinions?
My opinion is that there probably are excrements in Paradise.
Ah, well you see Bill, this is where you go onto the back foot.
Let me restate the above more simply. "To a first approximation, the geoid is an ellipsoid that corresponds to the surface of a rotating, homogeneous fluid in solid-body rotation, which means that the fluid has no internal flow. "
Thus, the fluid body response to gravity is what defines the reference ellipsoid. And as we can read, that ellipsoid is largely 'level' because our homogeneous fluid settles to equilibrium.
Thus it matters not when we may measure our ellipsoid, geoid and MSL as they are inextricably related by gravity and physics.
No, no, no! Go back and read the definitions again.
The reference ellipsoid is the thing that sea level and the various geoids deviate from by 100m or more. It is a simple mathematically defined (and entirely smooth) shape - an ellipsoid. A geoid is an undulating irregular surface (although if a human could see it and stand on it it would appear "locally smooth" because local variations in gravity are small).
If you want to talk about a theoretical definition of a geoid, you probably want to think in terms of gravitational equipotential, or equivalent (if I'm not mistaken) the surface that is perpendicular to the gravitational vector everywhere, at about sea level.
If you want to talk about a geoid used for reference, then you have to specify how it was measured. It used to be measured by looking at sea level, but now satellite based gravitational measurements can do a better job.
Often it might not matter whether you're discussing a theoretical or operational geoid, but occasionally it will. Like the rest of your comment:
Yes, but not in the way you think. There are an infinite number of gravitational equipotential surfaces at different distances from the centre of the earth. For reference purposes we want to choose one that is a good approximation for sea level. The reference ellipsoid is an ellipsoidal approximation to that.
But it is no longer the case that measurements of sea level define the reference geoid.
To a first order approximation, perhaps. But just remember that's not a sufficiently good approximation to draw fine detail inferences (like constraints on sea level variations) about fluid behaviour from.
And:
Well, it does matter if we measure things over too short timescales, as Neil White emphatically pointed out, because what we can measure is influenced by other factors, so we need techniques that get what we want to measure with minimal impacts from those other factors.
If we measure observed sea level in order to measure MSL, then the standard appears to be a measurement over 19 years in one location because that is long enough to average out a whole bunch of cyclic influences. If we measure gravitational strength and direction instead, I'm not sure how long you need for a really good geoid, but Neil White will probably know. (Given that sea level varies from the geoid, and water is mass which affects gravitational strength, you have to be careful...)
Well, Neil White says "NO" and he knows what he is talking about.
Perhaps you need to be more specific when you say "same topography". That means one thing to a scientist, and probably a different thing to you.
You could be right. You could be wrong. That's why we want to look at evidence rather than rely on someone "not seeing how".
So go the next step and have a go at defining what you mean by "same topography". To do so you'll have to specify something numerical, methinks, and sort out your confusion between reference ellipsoids, theoretical definitions of geoids and measured approximations to geoids.
And seriously: pay close attention to Neil White on these kinds of things.
"I just said I saw his point logically"
Logically, we ALL saw his point.
It was written down, it was able to be seen.
However, his point IS BOLLOCKS.
You, however, don't see this and refuse to see this and will not accept any evidence that indicates such because you are a troll.
"Thus, the fluid body response to gravity is what defines the reference ellipsoid."
No thus.
The fluid body has to MOVE first.
If a 1m difference were created in an otherwise level pool 1000 km across, how long would it take the water to reach level?
"If I am wrong in my understanding of the geoid and MSL, explain how, please."
And how many times does it have to be done before you'll bloody well accept it or fuck off?
"In BFPM’s defense, some of the earlier material that was posted here – not just Wikipedia – also said that mean sea level only departs from the geoid by a couple of metres"
That would be a defense if he didn't just ignore Wiki on anything supporting the science of climate that the IPCC reports on.
He cherry picks what bits if Wikipedia he wants to believe are right or wants proving right (has he EVER asked whether the sea level really IS that level? No).
Moreover, the few meters difference is ENTIRELY enough to swamp the 1/2m or less sea level rise.
THEREFORE the insistence that because one location is not showing SLR is prima facie proof that there is no SLR is ENTIRELY WRONG.
But Dolt here still bangs on about how "He has a point (though I'll not say how or why or listen to anyone saying or giving evidence this is not so)".
'On the back foot'? You're kidding, right?
'I thought SD had a point, but now I know better'. True or False.
I am otherwise simply entirely uninterested in your spirit-crushing array of obfuscations, dilations, prevarications, equivocations, peregrinations, ruminations, digressions, deviations, and diversions.
Fuck no.
The geoid is not an ellipsoid, no matter how many times you try to conflate the two concepts. (It might be suitable as a first order approximation, but given that SD is trying to make claims that rely on a much much higher order approximation - 3 or more orders of magnitude more accurate - introducing this first order approximation is only going to confuse people who are already a bit confused. Like you are.
And the geoid definition we have been discussing is NOT defined by fluid with no internal flow. It's defined by the gravitational field, at something near global sea level. The definition you quoted is not the same concept at all.
Whoever wrote this - I'm assuming you cut and pasted it - appears to be confusing two concepts by inappropriately choosing an oversimplified ellipsoid-shaped approximation for the geoid. The whole point of using a geoid for certain purposes is that an ellipsoid isn't a good enough approximation.
The author of that comment hasn't clarified which definition of "level he means. However it's worse than that. An ellipsoid that approximates the shape of the earth is largely "level" because it is an ellipsoid that is not that far from being a sphere. It's not largely level because some hypothetical fluid settles into "equilibrium"!
I don't know why you're trying so hard to confuse yourself.
Yep (although some of the material wasn't Wiki).
Didn't say it was a particularly comprehensive defence. Just that on that point he was consistent with material presented (for a change).
Yes, it's impressive that he admits all of the steps along the way but just cannot bring himself to say "SD's main point is clearly wrong, and whilst he has a minor point it is irrelevant to that claim."
"I don’t know why you’re trying so hard to confuse yourself."
So that they can complain that they're "only asking questions".
Thank you for the comments. In summary, Wow as usual exhibits a lack of reading comprehension. Hopefully his day job requires no personal interaction with others, no reading or following instruction, no sharp objects and no requirement for logical thinking.
Lotharsson, I do not mean to find fault with Neil White, whoever he may really be. That's not a smart arse reply, but you seem to suggest he is an authority? I have no idea.
Anyways, I disagree with what you have said, but I do agree I framed my latest piece poorly. I do not have the proper terminology and I apologise for that. Tomorrow, I shall try to reframe my statements better. But bear with me, I AM getting to a point... which is rather more than Wow can manage :)
Thank goodness I wasn't drinking when I read that. I like my nasal passages to remain lightly hydrated at best.
Wow has been through a dozen points already, and you apparently failed to understand them all.
I guess that even if you can't see the careful thinking and communication, the depth of knowledge and the adherence to data in the points that he's making, you could at least take a closer look at the website he linked to earlier.
"Thus it matters not when we may measure our ellipsoid, geoid and MSL as they are inextricably related by gravity and physics."
Gosh, that took an awful long time...They are inextricably linked by convention, habit, and the fact that measurement of one gives roughly the other.
Meanwhile, sea level changes are non-identical in various locations, by observation, thus disproving your "logic". Or Spangly's "logic".
Whatever. It was wrong.
Your defence of it was wrong. The real world does not conform to Spangly's fantastical assertions.
It directly contradicts your voluminous verbiage.
You've spent days typing tangential nonsense in defence of somebody else's nonsense.
Has this piece been highlighted yet?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.se/2012/12/noaa-2012-report-finds-sea-lev…
What's the deltoid analysis? ;-)
"Wow has been through a dozen points already, and you apparently failed to understand them all."
Hell, I've put them down one at a time so that they don't get missed in a long message.
Apparently even that is too complicated for them to read...
Here are 3 tide gauges wordlwide where sea level is rising,more than enough to demonstrate that Moreton Bay does not represent the globe.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=…
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml…
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml…
Anything from that site is bound to be suspect, i.e. crap.
If you want something more concrete, the starting problem is this statement:
"According to the latest NOAA sea level budget, global sea levels rose at only 1.1 - 1.3 mm/year from 2005-2012, "
Which is ABSOLUTELY wrong.
They have removed any increase in sea melt in the paper and the paper is therefore talking about the THERMAL EXPANSION component of Sea Level Rise.
This claptrap site then says this is "SEA LEVEL RISE".
ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
Wow, is it wrong or just moonson wrong Wow-style? ;-)
It's wrong.
But at least you realise there's a difference to me being wrong: I'll listen to someone tell me how it's wrong.
The paper, though is Olap-style wrong.
I.e. doesn't even think.
Take, for instance the fact that you apparently have no idea what it is and have to come here asking whether it's realistic or not.
You know you haven't a clue, but despite it being plain as day in your posts, you pretend that you're some sort of idiot savant.
You're only half right.
My last word on this:
http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/portal/gfz/Public+Relations/Pressemitteilunge…
The gravity field changes with time. The "billiard table" changes with time.
I'm off to talk to some gateposts.
Olaus, instead of reading what the "hockeyshtick" kooks say the NOAA says, why not read what the NOAA says directly?
"http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html"
"There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.
While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.
The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.
Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.
This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.
This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years. "
Dr White, never, ever, forget the audience consists of more than just gateposts. Thanks for your input. Some of us can follow links and do learn from what is being offered.
Deniers pushing bullshit reheated is bad precisely because people like you are listening and trying to bloody well learn something.
What the hell can you learn from Joan "U ar tu stuped!", Olap "I don't know", Bolt "I's just asking questions" and cham's "u are all meanies" when they ignore everything and just repeat the same tired old shit again and again?
Patience?
The stupidity of the scum of mankind?
That if the world ends, at least some deserving bastards will get it too?
But anything interesting is off the cards.
Vince, doing that wouldn't have given Olap a chance to make noise.
Neil White: "“7. Would MSL exhibit this same topography, or levelness, had we been able to measure it at 1870, 1930, 1980 or 2010?”
NO – because the estimate of MSL is, necessarily, from some collection of data over some range of years, the derived geoid (inappropriately compared to a billiard table in some circles) will vary depending on the time span of the data that is used in calculating the particular realisation of it. This is what blows the BTP right out of the water.
This is what some of us here have been trying to get through – the MSL patterns (and hence the estimates of the geoid based on them) change depending on the time span that the mean is calculated over. That the patterns change is indisputable. It shows very clearly in the satellite altimeter data and also (over longer time spans) in the tide gauge data. Just becaue one point (even if it was on the ocean) shows very little rise over some period, it doesn’t mean that there is no rise elsewhere, or that the mean has to be the same as at the single point."
Neil, thanks for this. I went back and reread it to see if I'd missed some essential point but I don't think so. Now, again, what I write here will not use the correct terminology and I know I'll struggle to communicate what I mean.
My basic understanding regarding the geoid is that its a reference surface that is bound to mean sea level. That seems to be the crux of your statements above. So, depending on when we ascertain MSL, the derived geoid will vary. However, I assume (and for those that hate the word assume, would 'deduce' be a better one?) that it doesn't matter when you derive the geoid, MSL will demonstrate close adherence to its topography. Similarly for the length of time. This is a wild guess, but the longer time we take to deduce MSL, the closer the fit to the geoid.
So while the geoid derived for a calculation of MSL in 1870 would be different to the geoid derived in 2012 which would be different to the geoid derived from a calculation of MSL over 10,000 years (if we had the correct data), the relative departures of MSL from the geoid would exhibit similar characteristics. In particular the range of variation ferom the geoid (ie the dynamic topography) would remain within a relatively narrow range.
So I guess my question is better framed as "Would the dynamic topography of MSL when compared to the geoid vary significantly outside of the present day value if it were evaluated in 1870, 1930, or over 10,000 years?"
Wow on Olaus. Exactly - that was my laugh for the morning! A past-tense, truncated version should be carved on his tombstone.
Enjoy.
Some of them can participate in a much more fruitful exchange of ideas than our trolls.
BFPM - could you please learn blockquotes?
I just found myself pleasantly surprised to read something direct and sensible in what you were saying, only to realise it comes from Neil White.
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
Maybe. Maybe not. (And that's ignoring the fact that the question is still vague and woolly.)
Do you have supporting data or are you merely reiterating your assumptions for the umpteenth time?
My money's on the latter, and the gateposts I've been talking to refuse to bet against me.
Yep, that one deserves to win the Intertoobs for the day.
"NO – because the estimate of MSL is, necessarily, from some collection of data over some range of years,"
Why is that? Is that because any transient issues will be averaged out by the fuzzy law of large numbers?
Correct.
And globally, you'd need a GLOBAL dataset, for the same reasons, right?
Correct.
So when you talk about global MSL you need to take a global set of data with a collection of data over many several of years (to create a TREND OVER TIME), right?
Note I've had to run YOUR side of the conversation here since you avoid any risk of saying something definite.
So now you know why SD's post about his river level and you've posted in defence of this being "proof" of no global MSL rise, you'll shut the fuck up, right?
David Benson,you have said that MSL can differ from the geoid by up to 100m. Neil White seems to be saying that it is no more than 1-2m. You suggest searching "departure sealevel geoid" but nothing much came up there. Do you have a definite source for this?
I always thought it was 1-2m myself, but I am willing to be corrected (and I suppose endure abuse for asking a stupid question).
As Neil White pointed out, the talk of Geoid is an irrelevance.
Tomorrow morning, Sat 12th Jan at ~ 9.45 am there is another king tide, possibly the highest tide of 2013.
If any of you Deltoids would care to meet me at the Cleveland Lighthouse, Cleveland, Qld., you can observe for yourselves whether SLR is occurring. The Sea should be reasonably free of external influences and if the tide exceeds what the same tide did on a regular basis [ie cover the lawn there to a depth of about an inch] ~ 70 years ago, we can say that SLR is happening. If it is the same or lower than it was then we can say SLR has been postponed.
NB this benchmark is not in a river estuary it is in a wide open bay with about a 50 nm fetch to the shipping channel.
Any takers?
No, we can't, and neither can you with any intellectual rigour.
Those conclusions do not follow from the observations for reasons found upthread - several times over.
Lothe, you need to understand the facts of life; SLR is like justice, to be real it not only needs to be happening, it needs to be SEEN to be happening.
You can tell everyone on earth what is happening in your tiny mind, but if the sea ain't risin', you in trouble.
And if that hasn't started to happen after ~ 70 years, you're a bag of wind.
"SLR is like justice, to be real it not only needs to be happening, it needs to be SEEN to be happening."
So you can see it. It's there in the data.
If you REFUSE to see it, then that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
"If any of you Deltoids would care to meet me at the Cleveland Lighthouse, Cleveland, Qld., you can observe for yourselves whether SLR is occurring."
I have a life to live and can't spend 10 years sitting by a river with an ignorant twat like yourself.
Especially since the exercise will not prove or disprove global SLR rise.
spangled drongo, are you man enough to take up this challenge.
Go and get the historical data for sea level measurements for all the ports in the world.
Then determine the trend for each location over time.
Then determine whether the trend globally is positive, negative, or zero.
It doesn't even require you to get out of your chair.
FIFY.
Tell you what spanking donkeys, why not go to Exmouth, Devon, UK and lets see this sea level rise.
Or is this only something you want to do when YOU get to decide where?
Hell, go to New York City Harbour.
So, the bigot has slunk back, along with his bedraggled idée fixe,
Anyone who, in his dotage, has never risen above the level of the former, will never renounce the latter.
That's as certain as his being dead wrong.
Only his gravitational impact on The Vacillator is of any interest; and not much, at that...
The best data you are ever going to see on SLR is the sea at king tide. Not data on the results of dubious measurement. on the other side of the earth where you don't know the full story. This is the real world.
I can understand how five minutes of reality might be too confronting for you deltoids but I thought I would give you the opportunity to stare reality in the face.
I should have realised it would be more than any of you could cope with but I will be there if you should change your mind.
BTW, in case you have any doubts it is well known that the SLs used to cover the lawn at CP back in the '40s and '50s so all you need to do to verify SLR [or otherwise] is check where SLs come to tomorrow.
Nope.
And even if that were true for a single location it's always been the case that a single location is not the globe.
It's really not that hard - unless you are only interested in asserting your own private "reality" in the face of actual reality.
BTW, SD, if you go looking you'll find that (a) "king tide" has no scientific definition, and (b) the height of a "king tide" can be modified by local weather and ocean conditions so it doesn't have the same tidal range every time.
That - and the fact that the land can rise or fall over time - means you generally can't compare one king tide height to another with enough precision to infer sea level rise or the lack of it.
But we've come full circle, haven't we? You're merely reasserting your ignorance!
Thanks Bill for the blockquote thing. Let's give it a whirl...
Nimbin Hippy
Yes, the geoid exhibits variation of up to 200 metres, but MSL varies by less than 2 metres from the geoid. So in effect, MSL varies by up to 200 metres.
The critical point I think is that the 2 metres is due to local perturbations (eg tides, currents etc) while the 200 metres is the variation from local gravitational effects.
Although the MSL varies by up to 200 metres, it is in effect still level at any point (disregarding the local perturbations) with respect to local gravity.
And as far as I know, THAT is SD's Billiard Table Principle or whatever he calls it.
And SD, you yourself seem to point out what I said in my last comment (my emphasis):
WTF?! (Notwithstanding all the other problems with your methodology which you simply deny), how can you use it as a benchmark for sea level rise purposes if it might not be the highest tide of the year? Even BFPM won't touch that idea, methinks.
You truly are an idiot on this matter. And somewhere deep down even you seem to know it.
The rest ain't bad, but from there on it's not quite there.
The "200m" is from the reference ellipsoid, which is an approximation to the geoid. The "2m" is from the geoid.
And more importantly MSL is not gravitationally level at every point - if it were, it would precisely follow the geoid, but it doesn't. There has to be some non-levelness.
(And neither of those are SD's "BTP".)
Actually Lotharsson, I think that is EXACTLY SD's BTP.
MSL WOULD be perfectly level, that is conform to the geoid, if it were not for local perturbations that overcome its tendency to be level. And as those perturbations amount to just 2 metres over the whole scale of the geoid, then MSL is more level than a Billiard Table
Let me say though that I am only trying to establish that SD's BTP is perfectly logical and matches the facts.
However, I now do not believe that it tells us anything about SLR.
Further to my point above about the BTP. Let's reduce the concept to bare basics. IF the sea did not experience the locally perturbing forces (eg tides, currents winds etc), the MSL would conform to the geoid. And if the earth were a perfect sphere of uniform density, the geoid would not exhibit any deviation from the reference ellipsoid (or spheroid I guess). Thus, the sea tends to perfect levelness.
Nope, as previously pointed out.
His BTP is an inference, not an observation or an analogy (neither of which need to be dubbed a "principle".) The observation - what you're calling the BTP - matches the facts. But as you point out it doesn't tell us anything about SLR.
The inference can be stated as "the ocean over its entire surface is flatter than a billiard table, therefore any sea level rise must be much "flatter" than that." Put this way, the BTP (inference) is obviously absurd, as you've figured out.
"It's True! (Given a certain value of True!) It just doesn't mean anything!'
You know, BFPM, I reckon you could work this routine up as a sort of neo-dada installation somewhere; just think - you could be remembered evermore as the Enduring Genius of Futile Recursion...
Anyway - that's nice to hear. Will it weather the revisionist squalls? Who knows? (Or cares?) Glad you enjoyed the blockquotes. You'd be amazed how many people staunchly refuse to use them even when shown the code. Bye-ee.
PS - now ask me how I can get the brackets to show up like that without becoming the thing itself.... Woooooooooo...
Apart from oversimplifications in your comment:
...does not follow, unless you (tautologically) remove all of the forces that generate local peturbations. To put it another way you seem to be mixing up a claim about the actual sea with a discussion of an idealised sea on an idealised planet.
If you had said "Under this idealised model, the idealised sea tends to perfect levelness" it would have been reasonable, but it reads as a conclusion about our own ocean which is counter-factual. If you're talking about our ocean you might try "mean sea level generally tends to levelness within a couple of metres" and then you'll get more agreement.
What makes you think it isn't one already? ;-)
Yes, agreed Lotharsson.
errr... about the sea being perfectly level that is.
What is agreed?
That SD's issue doesn't say SLR is not happening?
Agreed that SL isn't Level?
"The best data you are ever going to see on SLR is the sea at king tide."
In NYC.
Or exmoiuth
Wow, I was agreeing with Lotharsson's statement that "mean sea level generally tends to levelness within a couple of metres". And that means that MSL is, given the scale, pretty 'level' or 'flat'. And in fact, were it not for the perturbations that cause those couple of metres, it would be perfectly level or flat.
After all, MSL is NOT an actual observable physical property.
The real ocean of course exhibits a lot more variation with tides, currents, waves and so on, especially at very short time scales.
What you continue to get wrong is your assertion of what other sayl.
But until you define what the hell you mean, your past performance wiii continue to ensure nobody believes you are honest in your dealings.
You have killed your standing and you have to raise it again before anyone will listen to what you have to say.
"After all, MSL is NOT an actual observable physical property."
Tell spanking donkeys that.
"Flat" in this instance meaning, "curved, wavy, irregular and in constant motion".
Can we achieve any higher heights of pointlessness?
"Over open oceans the Geoid and Mean Sea Level are approximately the same..." from
http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/datums1.html
which actually means within a meter or maybe even two.
...and in places over 100m off from being "level"
Since 1910 the RATE of sea level rise has varied by less than +-30%(using long term averaging of non-cyclical phenomema), using tide gauge data [ lets not mix tide guage "apples" with satelite "oranges" ]. In that same period of time the RATE of co2 concentration has changed by +530%. Does that indicate sea level is strongly related to co2 (AGW...Anthropogenic Global Warming), or very weakly?!!!!! To imply that SLR has changed by over 200% (using long term averaging of non-cyclical phenomema) , in the last 100 years due to co2 (AGW) would be an inane proposition, which reveals the near psychosis in this field. Sea level rise is certainly one area where we have STRONG evidence of just the opposite!...there is nothing to be alarmed about w.r.t. AGW induced sea level rise...(get a grip!)
Any chance of not going around that particular loop again?
It depends which definition of "level" you mean. If you mean "as defined by the ellipsoid approximation to the earth's surface" then yes. But using that particular definition of "level" you get behaviour like marbles rolling "uphill" due to gravity.
If you mean "as defined by a surface perpendicular to the gravitational vector", then no. This definition is a much better reference surface for MSL, in which case it is accurate to say that MSL deviations are (at least currently) within a couple of metres of "level".
And clearly, Vince Whirlwind, you haven't a clue.
Yep, no clue at all - I've spent the last few days pushing the clueless idea that the world's oceans are "level", despite them being in constant motion around an irregular spheroid with a variation of 200m between high and low spots.
Unh, hang on, that cluelessness was yours. Got to give credit where credit is due..
Lotharsson, that is incorrect - the billiard table is flat, not all wavy to take into account gravitational variations.
The BTP clearly references an idealised shape, which would translate to the ellipsoid, not the geoid.
So sea level varies from the Billiard Table by 100m in either direction, making it extraordinarily difficult to pot let alone produce a cannon.
Let's all thank Spangly once again for his awesomely useful BTP, and Bolt for causing this extraordinarily useful idea to be discussed in detail for the past week.
Great work from the pair of them.
And precisely 42 angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Vince, if the billiard table were the size of the ocean, it would HAVE to be wavy to take into account gravitational variations, if you wanted the balls to run "straight" across the surface.
Even Richard Tol, who has been somewhat skeptical with respect to certain aspects of AGW, thinks Karen's citation is a crap paper (and he more or less calls out Judith Curry for falling for it).
Here's just one example of a glaring flaw:
And this is the VERY SAME FLAW that McLean, Carter and de Freitas relied on to get their "result", and which still other contrarian papers that claim all of mainstream climate science is deeply mistaken have made.
And here's another example of a huge flaw:
Here's another:
And there's even more.
And as Tol dryly observes about Ludecke's followup:
He apparently hasn't even run CO2 through those analytical tests to show that his claims about the sun are a stronger explanation under his own methodology than CO2.
It's not surprising it hasn't changed any minds - it doesn't even reach the bar of surviving initial scrutiny, let alone undermining a huge amount of work that says their central claim is incorrect.
I'd say the odds are good that Jesus was a hermaphrodite, and , as I opined before, there almost certainly are excrements in Paradise.
Well, shits, anyway...
I can see the expression 'hang-on - let's stop there before we go all BTP on this' coming into local usage.
Aaaargh, sorry folks. Wrong thread.
The concepts being expressed appear perfectly clear to me, but the various commenters like lotharsson etc seem to want to twist the meaning ...
Vince, I'm not twisting the meaning.
SD's concept was clearly expressed as MSL deviation with respect to the geoid. And the geoid is clearly a more appropriate baseline for MSL, no matter how geometrically different his billiard table is.
His "principle" is foolish enough on its own merits without trying to redefine it on his behalf to be even more foolish - and doing so just gives him more squirrels to distract with.
Well I went down to Cleveland Point Lighthouse this morning for the king tide expecting to see a Deltoid or two turn up to view the real world.
But surprise, surprise. No takers.
Probably just as well because the KT was 300 mm below its 1946 level.
ONE FOOT BELOW the lawn it covered 67 years ago!
What could possibly have happened in those 67 years?
Could it be that coastal development and/or dredging is lowering SLs in Moreton Bay relative to the rest of the world,
Or SL "mounds" 100 m high are sitting just offshore waiting to flood us at a moments notice,
Or could it be that not only is SLR acceleration not happening, SLR of any sort not happening but that SLs have actually been FALLING?
Could that be POSSIBLE?
Nope.
This has been another edition of short answers to stupid questions.
Or stupid answers to short questions as the case may be.
So because your ultra-high-precision observations of king tides reveal sea level has dropped by [some archaic unit of measurement that might be about 30cm] then obviously, sea level the entire world over *must* have dropped by the same amount, because the sea is like a billiard table (etc.).
So all those satellites are wrong.
All those sea level gauges are wrong.
All those smart guys who didn't just finish high school, but actually made it to uni and study this stuff full time are all wrong.
Because one Spangled Drongo is smarter than the lot of them.
Nope.
What Vince said.
"But surprise, surprise. No takers."
So?
Did you go to NYC harbour to see the sea level rise?
Nope.
Exmouth?
Nope.
Surprise, surprise, it seems like you don't want to do any measurements that aren't exactly where you want to be. Indeed I doubt that you are anywhere near Cleveland Point Lighthouse. I doubt you're anywhere near it. I suspect we would find that you merely pretend to be living there so you can claim that this cherry picked station is near you, therefore you "know" sea level doesn't rise.
"SLs have actually been FALLING?
Could that be POSSIBLE?"
No.
No.
If global sea level has fallen by your claim of 300 mm in 67 years, where did that water go?
Not to ice, because there's been significant net melting.
Perhaps as rain on land? There are no records I know of that show such an enormous redistribution to land, but if you know of any please share them.
Perhaps into the atmosphere? We know that it's water content has increased with warming, but then the ice would melt and that would beg the question - why is the sea level decreasing?
Or is there a rip in the space-time continuum that's sucked 108 300 cubic kilometres of water fromthe planet?
The truth is that the planet has not lost 300 mm of water to some undefined sink, because your measurement is facile. You have not conducted a controlled experiment - do you even understand the concept of controlling for impinging variables?
For example, did you control for changes over time of:
1) barometric pressure
2) apsides
3) solar, lunar, and orbital tilt conjunctions
4) El Niño/La Niña impacts
5) wave setup effects
6) wave runup effects
7) relative regional current effects?
If so, please show your working. References and other documentation must be provided.
If not, you're an ignorant fuckwit with no clue as to what you're doing.
Oh, and why does your observation render meaningless the current flooding of lawns and other such features in the Torres Strait, and on islands such as Tuvalu?
To say nothing of the tide gauges and the satellites mentioned above by others...
8) Wind strength and direction
9) Land settling, uplift or subsidence
10) Relation to a local geodetic benchmark
Judging by how suspicious and irate these cranky pensioners get when scientists do their homework properly, imagine the outrage if all the official sea levels were being "measured" using incompetent, careless and meaningless methods similar as Spangly's?
Yep, some of them would have large errors on the high side causing panicky local governments into all sorts of emergency measures. SD would pop a whole set of gaskets.
IIRC, he attributed those to overpopulation causing erosion. I don't know why erosion should cause a general sinking of the land rather than a nibbling away of the edges (or perhaps it's the weight of all those people).
SD
Or stupid answers to short questions as the case may be.
Well here is a short answer to that stupid statement.
Why don't you just go look up stuff about SLR at a decent source like this one here Sea-level rise: Where we stand at the start of 2013 — Part 2, and don't forget to visit Part 1 linked to at the top of that.
You could also go back to the start of this thread and learn from some of the sources pointed out to you.
You could also use a course on Physics, Feynman's three volume 'Lectures on Physics' should set you up. Same goes to chameleon and B4PM, you will even discover how your vision works along the way as a bonus.
I have to keep this short as every keystroke is still agony right now besides longer posts are a waste of time as the length of this thread demonstrates.
Aargh! What now? My painful fumble-fingers I guess.
SD
Or stupid answers to short questions as the case may be.
Well here is a short answer to that stupid statement.
Why don’t you just go look up stuff about SLR at a decent source like this one here Sea-level rise: Where we stand at the start of 2013 — Part 2, and don’t forget to visit Part 1 linked to at the top of that.
You could also go back to the start of this thread and learn from some of the sources pointed out to you.
You could also use a course on Physics, Feynman’s three volume ‘Lectures on Physics’ should set you up. Same goes to chameleon and B4PM, you will even discover how your vision works along the way as a bonus.
I have to keep this short as every keystroke is still agony right now besides longer posts are a waste of time as the length of this thread demonstrates.
Aargh! What now? My painful fumble-fingers I guess.
This is getting silly.
SD
Well here is a short answer to that stupid statement.
Why don’t you just go look up stuff about SLR at a decent source like this one here Sea-level rise: Where we stand at the start of 2013 — Part 2, and don’t forget to visit Part 1 linked to at the top of that.
You could also go back to the start of this thread and learn from some of the sources pointed out to you.
You could also use a course on Physics, Feynman’s three volume ‘Lectures on Physics’ should set you up. Same goes to chameleon and B4PM, you will even discover how your vision works along the way as a bonus.
I have to keep this short as every keystroke is still agony right now besides longer posts are a waste of time as the length of this thread demonstrates.
Has this thread turned left or right?
http://za.fotolia.com/id/41003573
Just to repeat, those instances of KT flooding of the lawns at Cleveland Point all those years ago can easily be verified.
This was a king tide not influenced by surge, flood, storm or barometric pressure so it showed accurate levels.
So, based on the fact that my observations of those measurements can be verified [yesterday's and those of the '40s and '50s] why is Moreton Bay showing SLs a foot lower than 67 years ago?
Yes DBB, when those end-of-life-as-we-know-it predictions fail to materialise, life does seem a little dull.
But you guys can't be blamed for not trying.
You do your best.
Look at the BoM. By wiping all those pre 1910 temperature records they have created all this new excitement.
49c out west is now "unprecedented" whereas it used to happen regularly.
Recognise any similarities?
"By wiping all those pre 1910 temperature records "
Care to clarify that and state exactly what you mean by 'wiping' Spanky? Backed with a credible reference too.
After all, some excitable dunderheads not to mention stray empty headed fuckwits might get completely the wrong impression.
Dunno Drongo. My initial suspicion would be that your BLT model is now completely fucked. Sorry ... I meant BTP of course.
But look, why don't you ask B4PM. He's all over it. According to that last post over at Marohasy's he's been doing a bit of reading, thinks SLR is a happening, and predicted that Saturday's king tide WILL actually equal or exceed previous benchmarks. Sounds like a go-to guy for mine.
Then again, maybe, just maybe, it's all a *lot* more complicated than you Dunning-Krugerite ninnies are prepared to admit.
It's interesting the way you subsitute for real-world data your completely fictitious anecdotes which are completely disconnected from any real-world data.
Imagine if climate science was being done by people who just made shit up like you do. Then you could *really* call the climate scientists "fr@uds" if they did that. But they aren't. Even you aren't - you're just a fantasist suffering from a bit too much calcification in your neurons.
spangled drongo --- Foster & Rohling, PNAS, (just appearing): expect 9+ meters of SLR.
That'll dampen your picnic.
You are a joke, Spangles. A sad, old, joke.
As I've pointed out, you don't end up this kind of nasty, delusional old man if you have any capacity to learn or change course. Nobody should be under any misapprehension that either will be possible here.
You mean as well as denying reality WRT verifyable king tide levels, as well as not turning up to witness the real world as it is happening before your lying eyes, you Doltoids surely don't mean to say you are also not aware of the BoM adjusting our historical, pre-1910 thermometer records out of existence because they could not be guaranteed to come from properly constructed Stevenson Screens?
How much denial can a koala bear?
The BoM admit it themselves.
It must be only wet-behind-the-ear-and-in-the-bed Doltoids that don't know what's going on in this world.
"
And you, of course, know what that means when comparing pre-1910 records to present day ones?
C'mon Spanky - show youy've got a working cranium, and not just a slowly expiring sluice you channel liar'n'denier garbage down.
Relationship between sea level and climate forcing by CO2 on geological timescales
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/03/1216073110.abstract
Many meters of SLR to come...
Spangly, the methods used for identifying good data or for adjusting tainted data to try to get something useful out of it are detailed in published literature and are therefore all out there in the public domain for competent people to criticise and therefore improve upon.
Write up better methods for dealing with this data, publish it, and if your argument is sound, your methods will be adopted.
The fact you and those you get your "information" from lack the knowledge, skill, or basic ability to participate in this process explains why the kinds of criticisms you're subscribing to remain confined to crank blogs or cranks who've escaped from them.
"And you, of course, know what that means when comparing pre-1910 records to present day ones?"
chek, it may not have been perfect data, no data ever is but it was arguably as good or better than some AWSs we have today and should have been kept.
Would you like to know where most station and official thermometers were kept out in places like Birdsville, Sturts Stony Desert etc where it gets seriously hot?
On verandahs!
And have you any idea how verandahs in those places were built a century and more ago?
When wives and little kids had to live in those areas without the mod cons of today, [or even iron roofs for that matter] people built verandahs with very thick cane-grass roof thatching and the walls were also thatched with spinifex which wicked water up from a perimeter water trough kept supplied from the O/H tank overflow. This set up an evaporative cooling system that was very effective.
Arguably those old records registered lower temperatures than any SS.
In the '50s I worked on a property aptly named Planet Downs near Haddon's Corner, on the edge of the SSD, where the temps at the thermometer on the verandah were often around 50c [122f] but that would be "unprecedented" today. That was nowhere near a record then.
I recall working in 50c temps when the windmill wasn't working because of no wind and having to pump from the bore with a diesel engine to water stock. One reason I remember it well is because it is the only time I have ever seen a bird drop dead in flight, presumably from heat.
There is copious evidence that you have a very different definition of "arguably" to scientists. Your definition clearly does not meet scientific quality standards, and it relies on a whole host of unsupported assumptions.
You use it to "admit" data in your mind that is biased from reality towards your existing opinion, but if it were used to "admit" data biased the other way from reality I reckon you'd be jumping up and down screaming about it.
Your whole schtick is a con, but the only person it is conning is you.
So Lothe, you would much rather believe a [possibly malfunctioning] machine than your lying eyes?
Have you ever read the First Fleet Journals Lothe?
Where Gov Arthur Phillip reported seeing more than 20,000 dead birds within the space of one mile at Rose Hill, Parramatta in Feb 1791?
"A writhing carpet of birds and bats dying of heat stress"?
Now Lothe, I've seen only ONE bird die of heat stress at 50c. How hot was it then to kill 20,000?
How many times since then has this phenomena been recorded?
And Lothe, have you ever done a direct comparison of a "verandah" thermometer with a SS thermometer?
Try it sometime.
"you would much rather believe a [possibly malfunctioning] machine than your lying eyes"
Since that would require each of thousands of machines not only to "possibly malfunction" but also thousands of people NOT NOTICE.
The probability is that the sea level is rising and your machine is malfunctioning.
After all, you've already said that such machines can malfunction.
FIFY. Your level of projection is remarkable.
Whatever answer you give does not support your claim that the older "verandah" temperature records are directly comparable to the new ones.
How many different ways can be imagined that the same or higher temperatures occur without this phenomenon resulting? I can think of two huge factors for starters. Real biologists can no doubt think of more.
One "good" comparison does not mean that all comparisons will be good.
Just like one "sea level not rising much" location does not mean that all locations aren't rising much.
Your logic is full of holes, and you cling like buggery to them even after they are pointed out. We do science so that we don't deceive ourselves. You're not interested in doing science - and the reason seems obvious.
No Lothe, I don't "cling like buggery" to anything.
I just find it a problem when the real world contradicts the theory and I see something happening that is the opposite of what someone is telling me.
Do you think that in the interests of historical records of temperatures that people measured in their homes and cities and had to live through in fairly primitive conditions, whether they were a little cooler or a little warmer, they were still data and should not be thrown out or adjusted on half baked, modern assumption.
Does it possibly occur to you that back in 1791 when scientific measuring devices were not as flash as they are today and there were birds dying then at the rate of 20,000 per mile, there is a fair chance that it might have been at least as hot as it is today when virtually no birds die of heat stress?
Or do you just put that down to birds getting used to it?
Do you ever think that maybe it is you Deltoids that are having a problem with reality?
And BTW Lothe, that data I have given you on the old king tide levels as I have repeated numerous times, but once more for Doltoids, is verifyable by talking to any locals who have known the area since the '40s and '50s.
I mentioned it to someone yesterday who was familliar with the area back then and he said, "don't forget, the tide used to come up under the house as well".
I had forgotten that.
But even when our BoM use their latest adjusted ACORN data they still can't get it right:
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/what-record/
But could it be that the ROW [apart from Doltoids, that is] is finally waking up to CC [Climate CON]?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2259934/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Gl…