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
That Daily Mail comment isn't even decent trash:
The trend established in the late 20th century continues in the 21st:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/global-temperature-update/
Sorry, there is no 'climate con'; you have been taken in.
They're not.
You're not interpreting what they're saying correctly. To interpret it correctly requires understanding science and its nuance accurately. You throw both out at the first sign that it clashes with your preconceptions, and cling like buggery whilst denying you're clinging like buggery to your incorrect understanding. There's 1500+ comments in this thread that clearly demonstrate this to almost everyone but you.
And instead of trying to understand what the science says you go for sources like that unsourced Daily Mail article and scientifically incompetent commentators like Ken's Kingdom, WUWT and their fellow travellers.
And for fuck's sake, SD, why the fuck are you so determinedly gullible?
Since you're so convinced you're good at telling where science is diverging from reality - which entails knowing what the science says and how confident it says it - it should be trivial to find where media commentary diverges from what the science says, eh? So please list for us the errors and distortions in that Daily Mail editorial comment you linked to. There are a number of them...
Bet you don't. You're not doing science, you're not competent to do science and you have no interest in doing science if it might go against your existing beliefs.
(And heck, did you notice that the 5th paragraph in that mushy editorial comment goes back on the first two? Apparently not. The Daily Mail has such contempt for its comment readers that they think most of them will have given up by paragraph 4! Did you?)
One could read "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
for a quite decent start.
"You’re not interpreting what they’re saying correctly. To interpret it correctly requires understanding science and its nuance accurately."
So Lothe, I have to INTERPRET CORRECTLY do I?
And its NUANCE too hey?
Give us a break, Lothe!
Ya remember the motto of the Royal Society?
Nullius in verba? Take nobody's word for it?
It doesn't say "take nobody's word for it but pay attention to their NUANCE."
IOW if the facts are hanging out there for the world to see, DONT BELIEVE THE BULLSHIT!!!
BELIEVE YOUR LYING EYES!!!
Just think, Lothe, if you had come down to the Lighthouse yesterday, we mightn't have to be going through all this crap now.
You mightn't be so worried about nuance.
Yes, of course! Are you truly that stupid that you think misinterpretation is a valid way to test it?!
If you misinterpret it, then your claim that "reality is different from what they are saying" doesn't address what they are saying. This is not a difficult concept. If you're comparing reality to something other than what they're saying then you're not comparing it to what they're saying. If someone says to you that "Unleaded is for sale at the local servo for $1.20/litre" and you rock up and see Premium at that price instead of $1.50 because you misinterpreted "Unleaded" to mean Premium you'll get rejected pretty damn quick. But that's exactly what you're doing here with scientific claims.
And yes, of course science has nuance. It has confidence intervals for claims. It has global averages of locally varying quantities which isn't the same concept as "the same value everywhere". And so on. If you pretend those aspects of what the science says don't exist, you aren't comparing reality to what the science says.
As previously pointed out, that's idiotic.
You've already been given almost a dozen reasons why your observations aren't necessarily in contradiction to the science which means you can't validly draw the conclusion you "draw" from them, but you're so busy trying to ensure you "believe your lying eyes" you can't stop for a minute to realise YOUR EARS ARE LYING TO YOU about the science says.
Typo:
Lothe, me ol' love, I sure wouldn't be expecting, let alone demanding, any premium around here at any price.
But you just refuse to get it, don't you:
Your Doltoid preconception of predicament has been postponed.
Go back to bed.
Indeed. I get what you're claiming, but I reject it as counter-factual based on examining ALL the evidence.
You reject what the science says based on EXCLUDING a bunch of evidence. I get that. I truly do. You don't seem to though.
So, about the distortions and outright errors in that Daily Mail article. You ARE going to enumerate them for us, right? Since you have a good enough understanding of the scientific claims to know when reality is violating them, right?
Spangled Drongo
It seems that your 'benchmark' was moved in 1975:
http://www.redland.qld.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/_About_Redlands/H…
Your claims look pretty dodgy to me!
Neil White, I hope you apply a bit more to your other work on SLs than that superficial drive-by comment.
What has the position of the lighthouse relative to its earlier siting on the Point got to do with SLs?
The LH is just a wooden structure on Cleveland Point. Whether it was moved, taken away completely or burnt to the ground would have no bearing on SLs there.
What it DOES indicate though, is that Cleveland Point protrudes into a large bay with deep, navigable water surrounding it where the authorities thought it prudent to put a navigation light. IOW it is not a backwater and SLs there would be very indicative of general SLs.
Here is the photo of the king tide:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/01/king-tide-not-so-high/
Spangled drongo said on 12 January 2013:
Old memories recounted by ideologically-biased lay people are not veritifcation.
A cross-checked, calibrated, referenced, objective and otherwise quality assured demonstration confirmable data is.
Can you spot the difference?
Since when has a "king" tide in or even near a river not been "influenced by surge, flood, storm or barometric pressure"? Please carefully explain and reference this claim if you believe it to be true.
You will not be able to. Random anecdotal king tide heights at one location do not accurately measure global sea level rise. If they did, there would be no need for thousands of tide gauges around the planet, nor for satellites in space.
And in addition to explaining why:
1) barometric differences do not need to be taken into account between the mid 20th century and now,
how about explaining why:
2) factors pertaining to apsides do not need to be taken into account between the mid 20th century and now,
3) alterations of mean sea level resulting from El Niño/La Niña cyclesdo not need to be taken into account between the mid 20th century and now,
4) alterations of mean sea level resulting from solar, lunar, and orbital tilt conjunctions do not need to be taken into account between the mid 20th century and now,
5) alterations of mean sea level resulting from wave setup effects do not need to be taken into account between the mid 20th century and now,
6) alterations of mean sea level resulting from wave runup effects do not need to be taken into account between the mid 20th century and now,
7) alterations of mean sea level resulting from relative regional current effectsdo not need to be taken into account between the mid 20th century and now.
Of course, I expect that you will be unable to answer. We've been pressing you for hundreds of answers to questions over the last three years, and your record of successful response it effectly 0%.
That's the only lack of rise that can be demonstrated.
...and on this blog SD will continue to totally ignore and deny the problems with his claims as pointed out by Bernard, and totally fail to point them out wherever else he repeats his claims.
(Amusingly over at Marohasy's, cohenite the ever reliable pseudo-scientist congratulates SD on his photo saying "now that's real science!" This is the same cohenite who gives his reasons for not visiting Deltoid any more as not wanting to drive ad traffic to people like Tim. It has nothing to do with being entirely unable to sustain his claims...nothing at all.)
Drongo says on the Marohasy thread:
This is not true.
He has been repeatedly disabused of this ignorant notion over the last three years. I and others have pointed out that:
1. changes in barometric pressure,
2. changes in apsides,
3. solar, lunar, and orbital tilt conjunctions,
4. changes in El Niño/La Niña impacts,
5. changes in wave setup effects,
6. changes in wave runup effects,
7. changes in regional current effects,
8. changes in tectonic position, and
9. local subsidence
all affect tide height.
In addition, it's pertinent to note that Drongo is moving the goal from his earlier landmark in the Nerang River, which is 7 km from the nearest exit to the open ocean and which was resoundingly debunked as a reliable gauge of sea level. When considering riverine locations, (and indeed even locations within close proximity to a river, such as Cleveland Point is, tide height is also affected by:
10. riverine flood water flows.
[The incredulous should note that Cleveland Point is in Moreton Bay, where both riverine effects still have an influence, and where oceanic influences are buffered and/or otherwise altered by Morton and North Stradbroke Islands.]
Further, recalling the land mark that Drongo so vociferously promoted for three years, but about which he has suddenly become quiet, it's salient to remember that king tide heights in rivers and estuaries are also influenced by:
11. the damming history of the river,
12. changes in the engineering of the riverbanks,
13. changes in terrestrial drainage,
14. in the Gold Coast context, the increasing development over time of canal estates
15. dredging work in the river and/or estuary
16. alterations in the location(s) and the size of the openings to the sea.
And that's not the end of it. In the context of Drongo's use of a lawn at Cleveland Point as a tide gauge other potential effects include:
17. sand/soil deposition by wind and other agents of erosion, and by human activity,
18. direct wind effects, separate from wave setup and runup, impacting on local flood levels.
This is not an exhaustive list. I can think of other potential confounders, but for three years it's proved impossible to have Drongo address even the most obvious ones, so there's no point going too far past the top of the list.
So, when Drongo says:
he is either consciously lying, or he is profoundly mentally/intellectually impaired or otherwise contrained.
For Marohasy to blithely reproduce Drongo's concluding comment:
without challenge, correction or caveat is in my opinion an indication of either a serious incompetence in the scientific understanding that would otherwise be expected of someone with her training, or it is a deliberate and conscious effort to create uncertainty and confusion in her campaign to discredit professional, working scientists who are (unlike Marohasy) trained, experienced, and expert in the fields of climatology and/or oceanography.
Whislt I'm at it, it's worth noting for the record that Drongo was unable to ever defend my demonstration that John Daly was completely and abjectly wrong in his supposed evidence to indicate that sea level had actually decreased, and that Drongo was also completely unable to ever demonstrate that he understood why he was wrong in his support for applying linear regression as a trend descriptor for an oscillating phenomenon.
Actually, Bernard, it could be true.
If spanky here never reads nor learns, then he won't know about all the effects that he's been told about BECAUSE HE'S IGNORED them.
Rather than be a lie, it's spanky admitting they are mentally damaged.
Spangled Drongo
It's because I'm careful that I'm very sceptical of anecdotal evidence. In most cases (especially in an area like this where a lot of people have agendas) it turns out to be WRONG when it is possible to check it. As an example, a year or two ago I had a guy tell me that sea level was going down at Busselton (WA) because he'd found an old map of Busselton (before they built the jetty) where the coastline was further inland than it is today. And therefore blah blah blah. It took about 20 seconds of googling to fnd the real reason - the large volume of alongshore sand transport which was blocked by the jetty (or something like that - I'm not a coastal engineer). Bizarrely this guy (who lived in Margaret River!) had never bothered to go and look - there are signs all over the Busselton foreshore about this.As well as the numerous state government and coastal engineering reports the google will find for you.
The Cleveland light house is certainly not an unchanged site - there has been a lot of work there and I wonder if they didn't build up the lawns to stop them being flooded at King Tides. Can you prove they didn't? Do you have any levelling history at all?
But let's accept your 300mm drop over 67 years for the moment. That is an average drop of nearly 5mm/year. This doesn't show up in any of the nearby tide gauges. Did all of this drop happen before the tide gauges started, or are the tide gauges wrong?
Are you now saying that global SL has gone down by 300mm in the last 67 years? Does the BTP apply to Cleveland as well, or only to Chevron Island? And if it applies to Cleveland, why doesn't it apply to all of the high quality tide gauge records around the world?
And all of what Bernard J said too!
Have you presented us with a single relevant, verifiable fact?
"Have you presented us with a single relevant, verifiable fact?"
No, Spanky is the King of the unverified factoid, being the possessor of nigh on 70 years of knowing everything that ever happened along the Narang river, and - incongruously - also the go-to man when it comes to vouching for the integrity and reliability of pre-1910 temperature records pertaining to all of the Victorian era Australian Outback. Somehow.
Spanky would of course throw a fit if Hansen or Mann et al were to request that anyone take their word for their information without any data to back up their statements. (And is also a purveyor of crank sites which explicitly do (unsuccessfully) question those data).
The question is, if generously one person in fifty even believed one word of what Spanky says,(and he's got nothing left to convince the remaining 49 with) what does he think he's achieving?. Which yet again, is why cranks hate numbers, as they always add up against them.
Neil White, that is the old jetty we built ~ 1946. That is the old wall. Someone since has put some part of a newer block fence on top of the old wall as you can see and you can guess the possible reason. The neighbouring properties' lawn levels are still the same as this one, as they always were.
The old well is still there. Only the internal boarding is rotting and collapsing as would be expected after 67 years and the well is severely silted up. This has had the effect of actually lowering the surrounding lawn but still it doesn't flood.
All the old Oleanders are still there. the decaying slipways and general landscaping are still in place.
IOW, the site is completely intact and original.
And as I said upthread, those old lawn floodings can be verified by talking to old timer locals. When a king tide covers your property it is not something you forget and we are not discussing the depth of the coverage, just any coverage.
On top of that, this benchmark agrees with all my other benchmarks for the Moreton Bay region ranging from the last 40 to 70 years most of which I also verified on Saturday.
They all show very obvious falls in SLs. Just as you can see the very obvious fall in this photo between the lawn level which is the same as the wall height level and the jetty deck level, and what is now the current king tide level.
AT LEAST A FOOT LOWER.
This doesn't need to be measured by me to the last millimeter when it is so obvious that the SLs are only going one way. DOWN.
Have you ever carried out any enquiry by talking to people who are very connected to the sea and its levels?
Like talk to people who have run a slipway business for a few generations. I'm sure there would be plenty around the country in suitable situations.
If you did you might discover that there are many similar verifiable facts just waiting to be discovered.
And I am not necessarily claiming that that is the true amount of fall but when ALL my benchmarks show FALLING SLs, your accelerating SLR claim is very hard to reconcile.
You have to admit you are not doing your job very well when you ignore the real world and make most of your claims based on not what you see but what a computer tells you.
It's only difficult to reconcile when you persist in ignoring all of the parameters relevant to your "benchmark".
You also have not explained the mechanism or the sink for a lost of water from the oceans that totals a volume of 108 300 cubic kilometres.
That is, just quietly, 111 trillion tons of sea water that's gone missing since 1946, in direct opposition to all laws of physics. According to your claim, at least...
It must be amazing to have powers of observation so much more accurate and precise than all those thousands of tidal gauges and satellites.
"AT LEAST A FOOT LOWER."
And ISN'T THE OCEAN.
Still at it I see.
BJ, when I observe the sea as in that photo and it is so obviously ~ a foot lower [tops of piles 4"; bearers 8"; decking 2"; total 14" but what the heck, call it a foot] than it was 67 years ago I don't need to invoke all that distractive, obscure crap that you bring forth to try to show how clever you are.
As I said up thread, if SLR is happening, it needs to be SEEN to be happening, like JUSTICE.
If you can't show that it is happening, stop digging holes.
You'll only drown quicker.
spangled drongo --- Consider the Thames sea barrier. Or the tide gauge at The Battery, New York City.
I wonder if Spangly remembers the controversy surrounding the new-fangled idea of "continental drift" or "plate techtonics"?
It would seem he would probably get on like a house on fire with Don Findlay:
http://platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/plate-tectonics-gon…
People have shown you that it is happening in a number of places. You keep furiously digging that "no it isn't" hole.
And Bernard's points that you dismiss demonstrate that you haven't shown that you claim that it's a foot lower now is a "like for like" comparison. But you keep furiously digging that hole too.
Was not hard to find
http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/climate/Map_images/SthEastQld/mapLevel2_Nort…
Note the disclaimers.
Nor this:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
wherein 'GIA correction' is for Glacial Isostatic Adjustment:
http://www.psmsl.org/train_and_info/geo_signals/gia/
and to my surprise, Australia is in a state of uplift.
Which maybe explains something, hmmm?
Generally, I would have though you might be forgiven for thinking that a low flat point in a river estuary would be more likely subsiding.
That's why it's lucky that Spangly's observations are backed-up by a geodetic reference point, so mistaken assumptions don't taint his precise and comprehensive observational data..
Right, Spangly?
Why is the GMSL different than local tide gauge measurements?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/why-gmsl-different-local-tide-gaug…
Good find, David!
There you go, SD and BFPM; exactly what we've been telling you, and straight from the seahorse's mouth, so to speak.
This will, of course, immediately ensure there will be no further futile discussion based on manifestly false claims... ;-)
Oh, and, here we go - a timely series on the ABC: how will rising seas due to AGW affect Australia?
(Of course, they won't have consulted any befuddled old farts, i.e. 'experts' to the Denier crowd.)
Enjoy!
I'm pretty sure that putting on a series about rising seas is proof of left-wing bias.
Unless they have invited Monckton to present it.
Nah, Monckton isn't sufficiently unlefty when discussing sea levels. You need Morner, preferably channelling the ghost of Canute, before you (ahem) tilt sufficiently away from that pesky "left wing bias".
And even then they're still gonna be a bit suspicious about the hidden meaning in the bias towards the left half of the alphabet in the network's name...
You are not seeing, you are "seeing".
By your logic, if you took the rainfall for wettest day in 1946 and it was greater than for the wettest day in 2013, then you have proved that it is drier now than then.
Do you not see the flaw in your thinking?!
You are not seeing, you are "seeing".
By your logic, if you took the rainfall for wettest day in 1946 and it was greater than for the wettest day in 2013, then you have proved that it is drier now than then.
Do you not see the flaw in your thinking?!
And herein lies the problem. You are relying on ideologically-tainted memories of events from 67 years ago, when the remembering retirees were likely children. How on earth does a child (or even an inexperienced and untrained adult) understand exactly what the context of any flooding event was way back in 1946?! Especially when this biased and anti-intellectual person has no data on which to rely beyond an undefined image of flooding.
You are completely removing the context from the event.
I am beginning to suspect that you're actually a poe, and that you're trying to lead Jennifer Marohasy into a noose. Nothing else but poe, conscious lying, or intellectual impairment explains why you persist in addressing why the factors we've listed do not need to be accounted for in your claim..
Which leads me back to the examples of the Torres Strait and Tuvalu. They are demonstrating serious encroachment by the sea - measurable, observable sea level rise. Why does your unsubstantiated and uncalibrated anecdote trump their hard evidence?
Good Lord but you blokes failed logical thinking and comprehension long ago, didn't you?
Bill:
That's nothing like what SD is saying. He is saying that if the wettest day in 2013 is not wetter than in 1946, and nor have any other years wettest days been more wet than in 1946, it is difficult to argue that days are wetter now than then.
Meanwhile, thanks to David B for the bit about GMSL and RSL. So, let me get this straight. When the Uni of Colorado tells us that GMSL "cannot be used to predict relative sea level changes along the coasts", one wonders at the vehement claims earlier in this thread that GMSL rise tells us to expect commensurate impacts on coastlines.
That said, SD may find this paper of interest:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/impact-self-attraction-and-loading…
Wrong Blot, your comparison is erroneous.
Drongo is watching a tide at one place on the planet, sampled at one unfixed moment in the year, in order to make a broad generalisation about long-term sea level trends across the globe. And he is be doing this without taking any account of impinging factors that are known to influence tide height.
In my metaphor, Drongo would be sampling rainfall rainfall at one place in Australia, on one unfixed moment in the year, in order to make a broad generalisation about the annual precipitation of the whole country. And if his ignorance of standardisation, calibration, factoring, and other quality assurance protocols was replicated in the same fashion as he demonstrates when he blathers about tide height versus sea level, he would ignore the garden sprinkler that's spraying variable amounts into his rain gauge on each annual occasion that he takes his measurement - likely standing 5 metres away from the gauge, given his lacksadaisical attitude to stringent measurement...
It's interesting though, Blot, to observe your mental contortions in order to paint my metaphor in a light favourable to supporting Drongo's incapacity with science.
"If you can’t show that it is happening,"
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U._S._Sea_Level_Trends_1900-2003.gif
Now if the sea is always flat, how come they show different but increasing sea levels?
Explain how donkey's data overrides these figures.
To give you some idea of BJ logic that insists on dragging in completely irrelevant side issues and distractions when running out of an argument, Saibai in the Torres Strait is a delta island formed from the silt from rivers and has always been awash at king tide and Tuvalu is not suffering SLR either:
tidehttp://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1839.php
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1839.php
So Tuvalu is a little under 7000mm in '95 and a little over 7000mm in '11.
Sea level rise.
So now you've seen that sea level rise is happening.
And BJ if you had accepted my invitation on Saturday I could have introduced to a few people who would have confirmed the SLs that prevailed up to the early 1950s which would at least have had the benefit of stopping you from bringing up more very obvious and unnecessary distractions.
You really do get desperate when you are cornered.
If I didn't know you better I'd be inclined to call you an abject denier.
" idea of BJ logic that insists on dragging in completely irrelevant side issues and distractions "
By bringing in on a discussion about whether there's sea level rise, a place where sea level rise is happening...?
How "logical" is thinking that evidence of SLR is irrelevant side issues?
Since Dolt insists they want to see "effects" of SLR, that it is drowning is ALSO relevant.
Unless you wish to comment on Dolt's introduction of irrelevancies..?
"who would have confirmed the SLs that prevailed up to the early 1950s"
Across the globe???
No, you made it up.
Hell, you don't even live in the area and never turned up there yourself.
"He is saying that if the wettest day in 2013 is not wetter than in 1946, and nor have any other years wettest days been more wet than in 1946, it is difficult to argue that days are wetter now than then."
So you assert that Spanking Donkeys has no clue how to calculate a trend?
Hey Wow... can you ummm point out the SLR acceleration in those US trend graphs? Hmmmm?
The Tuvalu one is interesting, quite a dip in 1998. is that a gauge/data issue, or something to do with the super El Nino? What do you reckon the trend line would be for that one?
You stupid git Drongo, this is my point. You consider other factors when the initial indication indicates sea level rise, but you ignore these same confounders when it suits your own story.
And by the way, sea level rise is a component of the flooding in both of my examples. How typical that you cherry-pick your factors, in addition to merely ignoring those that don't cooperate with your pseudoscience.
What an egregious strawman gambit. Would you have paid the price for taxis, and train and 'plane tickets? Would you have compensated me for the two three days I would have lost, in addition to me missing out on a significant family event?
DYObloodyR
"can you ummm point out the SLR acceleration in those US trend graphs? "
So you now accept that
a) there is sea level rise
b) that the sea level rise is not equal in all places
Well done.
To find acceleration you need more data. You can find the total of the data here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/files/2012/12/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg
Also, deadhead: reading comprehension fail.
*BUZZZZKRK*!!!
Pretty ironic in the process of accusing someone else of a comprehension fail, don't you think?
Take heed, Bolty - SD is where you'll be in a decade or two.
I never said there was not SLR, nor did I ever say it couldn't be different in different places. What I DID say is that I can't see the acceleration in the past 50 years. And I opined that SD had a point with his claims re local effects and the BTP.
Clearly, there IS SLR at some locations, and not at others. And on the whole, it's not accelerating. Ipso facto ergo sum, no scary world ending CAGW driven SLR, esp on the Aussie coast. My investment properties will be just fine.
"I never said there was not SLR, nor did I ever say it couldn’t be different in different places. "
Yes you did. It's why you've never accepted what anyone else has said.
"What I DID say is that I can’t see the acceleration in the past 50 years."
Where?
"Clearly, there IS SLR at some locations, and not at others"
Then why did you keep whining on about how SD's observations showed that global SLR could not be rising?
You're not improving BJ. Now you claim SLR by using a silt island, that has always been awash at high tide, overpopulated to the extent that they have to build poorly constructed concrete walls to protect every last bit of their coastline which then just causes waves to explode instead of dissipating their energy and create even more erosion.
That's not SLR! That's overcrowding and erosion and it's a common problem.
You need to go back to the home of your ancestors and get your head right. They understand these things.
"no scary world ending CAGW driven SLR"
Ah, there we have it.
Dolt is another denialist. Nobody but them whinges on about CAGW.
Tell me, if your seafront property is so safe, in what way do you "adapt" to the climate change by keeping it? Do you mean some special denialist version of "adapt" which is basically "I won't change, so everyone else will have to"?
And talk to the New Yorkers about safe seafront property...
"That’s not SLR! "
Not even Dolt agrees with you, spanky.
I downloaded the Tuvalu data, whacked it into Excel and added a trendline to the graph.
And whaddayaknow - SD's right! There's no rising trend on that graph at all! I mean, go see for yourself. There's most definitely not 70+mm rise over the data collection period. Definitely not. I mean, who are you gonna believe, the data SD linked to or SD?
Concrete sea walls cause more erosion than no walls?
That's a new one. Is it supposed to be jumping the concrete walls and eroding the land on the other side? Or eroding the concrete walls? Inquiring minds want to know.
And Drongo, I was going to wait a while before spring this on you, but I can't be bothered to play the game.
You claim that sea level is decreasing by 355 mm in 67 years. This is 5.3 mm per year. Where that water is going you don't explain, but the alternative is that land is rising by 5.3 mm per year - and note that according to you this is happening around the world. That's some spectacular tectonics...
But it's worse than that. You reckon that sea level is not rising at Tuval. If that is the case, then all of the 5.1 mm/year change at Tuvalu must be occurring as a result of land subsidence at about the same rate that it would be going the other way in south east Queeensland. Do you understand the phenomenal tectonic cataclysm to which you are alluding in your Velikovskian phantasics?!
Definitely reminiscent of your hero Daly's mangling of sea level behaviour.
Ah, so once again you recognise external factors that impinge on the perception of a change in sea level. Drongo, read carefully what I said - I'm simply making the point that your logic applied to other sites shows the opposite of what you claim for the nerang and Moreton bay. Why is it that you only recognise other factors when it agrees with your narrative, but never when it clearly disproves your claims?
You really are a drongo, Drongo. You just walk into the noose and tighten it around your neck without any assistance required at all from the hangman.
A question to lurkers here.
Is it really so difficult to understand the points that Lotharsson, Vince Whirlwind, David B. Benson, Bill, Wow, myself and others are making, or is it just that Drongo has a grasp on 22nd century physics that has escaped tens of thousands of professional scientists and millions of other scientifically-trained people?
And that he has done so with no need to account for empirical evidence (= the planet itself) that exists in diametric opposition to the conclusion that Drongo reaches...
Sorry Bernie me old dummyluv, that photo of mine demonstrates one thing and one thing only:
SLs ARE A FOOT LOWER THAN THEY WERE 67 YEARS AGO.
Your never ending waffle on low lying, fully floating, overpopulated islands doesn't demonstrate ANYTHING on SLs.
Try another coconut.
Doltoids may be very savvy on Gravy Meters etc but it took the Bolta to pick up on the fact that when the el Nino arrives it blows Tuvalu's ocean away.
Well spotted.
Bolt for PM --- In detail MGSLR cannot be used to predict a local SLR. One has to take local factors (such as land subsidence or uprising) in account as well.
But in general one can say that MGSLR causes local SLR.
As for acceleration, this is still disputed. That is, the experts are divided in whether SLR as increased in the past 30 years in comparison to around 1900 CE. What is not disputed is that sea levels will rise (at an increasing rate) another 4+ meters.
So SD throws out some more "squirrel!" exclamations.
How about that rising sea level trend in the Tuvala data that you pointed to, SD? The one you said is "not suffering SLR"?
It's really handy that any inconvenient fact just goes down the memory hole with you.
Drongo, given that you now claim a 14 inch drop in sea level in 67 years, where has the one hundred and twenty-eight thousand three hundred and seventy-two cubic kilometres (128 372 km2 of seawater represented by this decrease disappeared to?
Just to help you get a grasp of the disappeared seawater, that's one hundred and thirty one trillion five hundred and eighty-one billion metric tons (1.31581 x 10 14 of missing ocean.
Where did it go?
And what physical phenomenon or phenomena moved it there?
Bloody National Geographic and it's pitifully-capabilitied site. Oh for a preview and html that works.
Take 2:
Drongo, given that you now claim a 14 inch drop in sea level in 67 years, where has the one hundred and twenty-eight thousand three hundred and seventy-two cubic kilometres (128 372 km^3) of seawater represented by this decrease disappeared to?
Just to help you get a grasp of the disappeared seawater, that's one hundred and thirty one trillion five hundred and eighty-one billion metric tons (1.31581 x 10^14 tons) of missing ocean. Or, if you want it in SI units, that's one hundred and thirty one quadrillion five hundred and eighty-one trillion kilograms (1.31581 x 10^17 kg) of missing ocean...
Where did it go?
And what physical phenomenon or phenomena moved it there?
I think the phenomenon you're looking for is the heroic power of indomitable ignorance.
All these fancy words and physics terms you're using are just a form of cheating, you see; SD, like Chebbie, lives in a 'reality' which is composed in its entirity of the puppet-show that's always playing inside his head.
Spangled drongo:
Let's try this one point* at a time, as simultaneous listing of multiple factors obviously overwhelms the one-cylinder ganglion that substitutes for your brain.
What was the barometric pressure at the time of the tide in 1946?
What was the barometric pressure at the time of the tide last week?
What is the difference between the two values?
What effect would this have had on the height that the tide achieved last week compared to 1946?
You might think that you can avoid answering these questions Drongo, but you can't - not if you expect anyone to take your claim seriously. If barometric pressure is relevant, you need to account for it, an to show that you have done so.
If it's not relevant, explain why.
And I note that you still haven't addressed the matters of John Daly being completely and abjectly wrong in his supposed evidence to indicate that sea level had actually decreased, and that you understand why you are wrong in your support for applying linear regression as a trend descriptor for an oscillating phenomenon.
[And don't forget that there is a long list of further factors to be considered in subsequent posts...]
Poor ol' Bernie. There I was giving him the BotD on Gravy Meters and he blew it. He actually BELIEVES them.
And like most of the other Ds here, he doesn't know anything about fully floating coral atolls and delta islands either.
Oh well, next coconut!
Bernie, I've already given you a present of 5cm and if you had paid attention you would have seen my barometer reading for last Sat.
I have also said that those king tide levels that I quoted for the '40s and '50s did not include enhancing influences such as floods or cyclones so average BP would have been between roughly 1005 and 1020 hPa. IOW 1012.5 average which is exactly what it was on Sat.
That is a reasonable question but give me some credit for knowing what influences SLs.
Now that will give you lots more coconuts.
Wow,
You are hilarious!
You are always good for a laugh:
"Tell me, if your seafront property is so safe, in what way do you “adapt” to the climate change by keeping it? Do you mean some special denialist version of “adapt” which is basically “I won’t change, so everyone else will have to”?
And talk to the New Yorkers about safe seafront property…"
Can you please offer a Wow definition of a 'safe seafront property'?
What do you expect a seafront property to be 'safe' from?
Would you like to let us all know where you think there is or has ever been a 'safe seafront property'?
Do the people in NY have any extra reason to not change or adapt and therefore expect everyone else to do something about the fact that the city was built on the coast?
If you can't manage that without added insults and expletives I'm fine with that.
It will give me and my hairdesser an extra good laugh.
Boy, are these two made for each other...
This thread will never die, just slowly fade into irrelevance...
Do we need to further discuss how many angels dance on the head of a pin?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
Seen this one?
Are all these people 'nutters' or perhaps 'mediocre at best' or perhaps did they work for someone suspicious in their past?
Conclusion in the abstract:
"The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.
However, I'm sure Lotharsson and Bill etcetera will let us all know that there are deeper and intellectual 'nuances' in this.
And therefore words and phrases like:
' which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing.' or:
'weak or absent'
mean something other that ' small or no acceleration' or 'weak or absent'.
Chameleon, it was discussed briefly here some time back, an article which has been mentioned a couple of times on Deltoid already. Do try to keep up.
BTW, that commentary argues strongly (in the Has sea-level rise accelerated? section) that the claim that sea level rise shows little or no acceleration over the 20th Century is mistaken. That section and the link goes into some detail. I'm sure you and your hairdresser will be able to point out why it's wrong. Here's the start of the explanation:
(Shades of Tim Curtin.)
Maybe you'd prefer to skip straight to the simplified tutorial?
Seeing as you are able to distinguish valid from invalid statistical uses of data I'm sure you'll be able to point out how inferring acceleration from a quadratic fit when your data isn't quadratic is perfectly valid when these guys do it, even though:
Hmmmm...
And you do realise though, that that particular paper implies higher 21st Century Sea Level Rises than previously thought, right?
Now that we've got that out of the way, how about all that homework that was piling up for you? I seem to recall there was a whole list of issues with your claims that you hadn't yet responded to...
Let me put it another way in a futile attempt to forestall yet another chameleon misinterpretation.
That paper doesn't appear to be denialism at work - it looks like they just got it wrong.
There is a current discussion in the scientific literature of a number of papers that make similar claims and use similar methods. I'm pretty confident - especially given the egregious error their method is shown to make in the simplified tutorial I linked to - that nearly everyone will agree the method is wrong once the dust settles.
You, of course, who are never taken in by claims derived from inappropriate methodology, are welcome to try and show how the method is correct. But to do so you'll have to show why the incorrect result of the method in the simplified tutorial is actually correct.
I predict you'll Gish Gallop to the next "point" instead!
Like Flannery's, "Global Organism", which you seemed to find funny. Do you know what it actually *is*, yet?
Chameleon, could it be that Neil, John et al are having second thoughts?
Is the Gravy Meter vacillating?
Say it isn't so!
DBB, I've got 355 on my pin and that's about 500 more than you got.
Nah na na Nah!
Come to think of it, I thought all dissenting scientists were blackballed by peer-reviewed journals, which is why Maclean, McKitrick, Watts, McIntyre, etc... are forced to publish their research in places like, The Journal of Mining Stock Spruiking, and so forth.
Could it be that genuine scientists who can actually conduct genuine research (and don't feel the need to pad their CVs with imaginary PhD's, eh, John?) have no trouble getting honest and accurate work published if it is of a sufficient quality?
Chameleon still hasn't apologised to Richard Simons for blatantly lying about what he wrote.
She seems happy to cultivate a reputation for dishonesty.
So, you can't answer the questions?
I accept your capitulation, and the concession of defeat that it indicates.
Why on earth would I do that when you haven't shown any sign over the last three years of understanding this?! The prime example is your refusal to answer the simple first questions about the effect that barometric pressure has on separate occasions of tide peaks over time. You choke on actually demonstrating any understanding or appreciation of this, and you in fact insist that barometric pressure is not a factor affecting your tidal observations.
So no, Drongo, you get no credit for understanding anything about the science of sea level rise. You have shown yourself to have been able to learn nothing in three years - that's about as flat a learning curve as anyone could ever have.
And I note that you continue as ever to avoid those long-ago asked questions piling up at your door...
You are an under-achiever if ever there was one.
I have no idea how that 'gravy train' works SD.
But it appears that Lotharsson has just said that those proper climate scientists at those proper institutions like CSIRO, simply got it wrong!
How did that get past peer review?
Wouldn't be because they didn't unscrupulously but clearly outline their timeframes and methodology would it?
Yes Vince!
Bingo!
I do find it funny!
Well done!
I haven't had time to find that clip for you.
I'm stunned that Bill (?) hasn't done it.
I'm positive it's googleable, how about you give it a shot?
There was also an analogy with ants if my memory serves me correctly.
Lotharsson?
Are you the apology monitor at this blog?
I seem to recall you implying I should expect Spangled D to apologise before I said anymore about Wow's and Bill's use of gutter language.
And I did apologise for the misnomer.
I had no problem interpreting the original 'probably' comment.
Anyway, some of you went into great lengths to rewrite it and re interpret it for him.
He thanked you.
Don't you remember?
He was out of context.
Well, there goes this neighbourhood!...
Life's simply too short to attempt to sort out any of what passes for thought inside Chebbie's skull.
Bernie Dum Dums, do you have any idea what the BP is in SEQ during summer when there is no cyclone in the offing?
The normal synoptic situation at that Christmas time of year is a high in the Tasman with ~ 10 knot SE- NE sea breezes with above normal BP of around 1018 - 1020 hPa. The barometer is above normal most of the time.
This is the time of year when most of the national sailing championships are held because it is the most perfect sailing weather. I raced sailing dinghies and yachts there for years.
That's theToY the king tides arrive and that's when I witnessed the king tides at those levels.
Chameleon, calm down.
We're not asking for any "clip" anymore, as it is now an accepted fact that the Flannery "fleeting fancy" was a work of fiction.
What we want to know about is what you understand about Flannery's "global organism", which quote is not in dispute (if you'd just learn to quote properly of course).
What we need to know is, seeing as you are apparently criticising "global organism", what does "global organism" actually mean?
Surely, you take care to understand something rather than simply subscribe to some group-thinking auto-criticism of selected personalities?
So, what is this "global organism"? Please xplain?
Shorter Spangly: "Thousands of hard-working PhDs are wrong because the 10 minutes I spend annually gathering data on this issue is far more precise and comprehensive than whatever it is that they do with their satellites, geodetic reference points, and so forth."
In other words, you have no clue what the barometric pressure was 67 years ago, and you have no evidence that barometric pressure has no influence on the 1946 tide height in your anecdote compared to last week.
Typical Drongo - all words and no substance.
Oh, and Drongo, I've watched barometric pressure go up and down like a yoyo with nary a cyclone or even a storm in site. 20 millibars or more in half an hour.
So, once again...
What was the barometric pressure at the time of the tide in 1946?
What was the barometric pressure at the time of the tide last week?
What is the difference between the two values?
What effect would this have had on the height that the tide achieved last week compared to 1946?
You might think that you can avoid answering these questions Drongo, but you can’t – not if you expect anyone to take your claim seriously. If barometric pressure is relevant, you need to account for it, an to show that you have done so.
If it’s not relevant, explain why.
And I note that you still haven’t addressed the matters of John Daly being completely and abjectly wrong in his supposed evidence to indicate that sea level had actually decreased, and that you understand why you are wrong in your support for applying linear regression as a trend descriptor for an oscillating phenomenon.
[And don't forget that there is a long list of further factors to be considered in subsequent posts...]
Bernard reminds of King Cnut....there are some forces that are simply beyond the power of reason....Spangly's studied ignorance is one of them.
CORRECTION:
Shorter Spangly: “Thousands of hard-working PhDs are wrong because the 10 minutes I spend annually gathering data on this issue IN MY HEAD is far more precise and comprehensive than whatever it is that they do with their satellites, geodetic reference points, and so forth.”
Berdie Num Nums, you know as well as I that that argument is hopeless. To meet the levels you require to justify your SLR over that period, each of those six or seven lawn floodings could only have occurred during a very severe cyclone and nothing like that ever occurred there in that period and even if one did it would have shown a much higher SL when compared to the rest of the floodings.
All those floodings took place during mild, almost calm,summer weather. There wasn't even the question of a wave breaking onto the lawn to threaten the well. Just the slow steady creep of the tide.
If this flood had happened in the weather you require for your scenario, it would have been extremely destructive but there was no damage caused at all to the numerous boat sheds, slipways and other infrastructure.
Pick another coconut.
SD
Wasn't there a major flood in SE Qld in April 1946?
Joni, but not at Christmas time. The reason preserving the well water by keeping the tide out was so important was the king tides arrived before the wet season and often our tanks were low or dry and well water was all we had. In those days you didn't have tankers supplying homes with water.
So when was the high tide you are talking about?
That's particularly stupid, even by your extremely low standards. The reason the unjustified claim was picked up so easily is that the methodology was presented in the paper.
Mistakes happen in pre-publication peer review. Even horribly misconceived papers like McLean at al, Soon and Baliunas can occasionally make it through.
Post-publication peer review sorts them out.
That's why you are easily deluded by the occasional loud denialist press releases trumpeting the latest denialist paper to get into a peer-reviewed journal...only to be comprehensively demolished within weeks. You've got to look at all the evidence. Come to think of it, someone might wanna set up some sort of scientific super-committee to take a real hard look at it all and produce some sort of summary, you know?
Nope. Just pointing out (in case anyone's forgotten ;-) ) that you are an unrepentant liar - and that when you "seem to recall", you invariable "seem" to recall wrong.
The rest of your comment does not address your lies about what Richard Simons said.
Aren't you just precious?!
Shorter chameleon: I'm right, and it's your job to prove I am.
From Bernard J, a while back ...
No Bernard it really isn't that difficult. I always learn something from reading the regular posters here - if nothing else, the clear and thoughtful arguments that you, Lotharsson, and Vince et al put up make me realise how my own thinking can be too shallow and/or misdirected at times.
Those same points should also ram home to fair minded readers that the deniers will run like hell to avoid being nailed to a position that's at odds with their own ridiculous bullshit-du-jour.
I mean ... Drongo, where *has* all that water gone if sea levels are dropping as you assert?
Chameleon and Karen?? Not sure they're functioning adults. Do they share the same brain cell or something?
B4PM seems like he could show these people the error of their ways in a flash ... but wouldn't ever do it. Perhaps its a courage thing. Can you imagine what it must be like for a denier over at Marohasy's when a relentlessly dick-headed nong like cohenite gives you his latest thoughts on where the professional scientists are wrong? You could only sit there, slumped in despair, knowing in your soul that while he talked the talk he actually didn't have a clue.
But then again, maybe contemplating the smouldering ruin of your intellectual life (once you line up with the arse-clowns) has its own rewards.
Someone else here called it perfectly: 'Giggling Lobotomites', the lot of 'em.
"but you can’t – not if you expect anyone [apart from fellow deniers who are as gullible as shit] to take your claim seriously"
FTFY, Bernard.
"You are an under-achiever if ever there was one."
Heck, even underachievers are thinking "He's not really trying, is he".
"Boy, are these two made for each other…"
Don't say that, Bill.
What if they breed????
Pissing in the gene pool is bad enough, but that's pouring toxic sludge in the pool. And throwing in babies after it.
"Wow,
You are hilarious!
You are always good for a laugh:"
Thank you, I aim to entertain as well as educate.
Now, any chance that you'll learn rather than just giggle like an empty-headed bimbo?
"Well, there goes this neighbourhood!…"
Because Joan isn't getting the attention any more and therefore unable to shit all over the site, the idiots here have decided to take a dump of their mental diarrhea on this site to put people like Chris off reading.
Drongo, there are multiple factor for us to consider. You are so recalcitrantly stupid that you are proving completely unable to answer even the first point regarding barmetric pressure.
My intent is to ascertain how each of these factors affects the quality of your anecdotal evidence. I am doing this because without the data you can't discount the fact that these factors will have an effect on a sampling of tides.
I'll give you some advance warning though. Once you stop running away like the intellectual coward that you are, I'm going to ask you about El Niño/La Niña and patterns of ocean current change. Then I'll randomly walk through other parametres on the list, and then I'm going to try your capcity for holding on to more than one bias at a time by asking you to expand your consideration from the Brisbane-Gold Coast strip to the whole of Queensland, and then to Australia, and thence to the rest of the planet.
But put aside for now those concerning jitters about what is coming. Just answer the questions about barometric pressure. You know, the ones that go:
What was the barometric pressure at the time of the tide in 1946?
What was the barometric pressure at the time of the tide last week?
What is the difference between the two values?
What effect would this have had on the height that the tide achieved last week compared to 1946?
And a hint, answering with more anecdotes isn't science. It's just an old codger blathering about "back in the day"...
Before I go, have you figured out why John Daly is wrong, and where all of your water went
And for your delectation:
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/the-australian-sea-r…
Another post about the paper that the Australian thoroughly misrepresented to the point that one of the lead authors called them out for it - the same paper that chameleon just cited as evidence that sea level rise was not really accelerating.
Hmmmm.
One suspects chameleon hasn't read the paper, doesn't know what it says, and is merely copy-paste-trolling what someone else told her. There's quite a lot of nuance in the paper, including a discussion of natural variability complementing anthropogenic forcing for much of the 20th century.
Lotharrson:
I had her pegged as a dishonest piece of garbage, but as I read more of her comments I'm coming to the view that, by her lights, she is honest (she will twist this to mean that I think she is honest - not the same thing at all). The problem is that her mind is a swirl of random, woolly thoughts all held with conviction but without the capacity to link them together. I suspect that she has no recollection of what she wrote and sees no reason to go back to it because it would be like reading something written by a stranger, something done back in the mists of time with no bearing on today's 'thoughts'.
Richard,
Your propensity to jump to conclusions about people based on no solid evidence makes for amusing reading.
I really don't care what your view of me is or what you suspect about my mental capacities.
It is entirely irrelevant.
Take a chill pill Richard and stick with the issues.
Your 'judgement' says more about you than me.
You missed the 'nuance' pages ago and someone else cleared it up for you.
Amusing that you whine about that, cham.
I guess the problem is you aren't constitutionally or mentally able to take evidence and draw conclusions from it, you MUST to that the other way round.
SD
Still would like to know the date in 1946 of your high tide.
Wow,
Trust me.
After reading most of your emotional vitriol, whatever you say I MUST do will not be what I'll do.
Lotharsson?
Why set so much store with 'peer review' for scientific publications if they don't get sorted out until later?
Doesn't that imply that 'peer review' mostly checks methodology?
I have been consistently berated by some here for not listening to the professional experts.
The added comments are we need to pay attention to the 'published' work from respectd organisations.
This paper ticks all those boxes.
However, if it helps at all, I think this one suffers from some of the same basic constraints as all the others.
I think they're all very interesting but they are all being used incorrectly by the surrounding politics.
As I said Joni, the king tides are always around Christmas. Around the summer solstice. They are usually pretty identical [within one or two centimeters depending on influences] They are morning tides usually with only a gentle sea breeze unless there is a cyclone and/or flood occurring in which case there is wild, wooly and very memorable weather.
There is another king tide period during the winter solstice but these are at night.
I'm sure you can find the exact dates of all the king tides from 1946 to ~ 1953 if you feel it is so relevant.
The ones I witnessed then were all in beautiful weather in the school holidays when we were at the height of our summer activities.
Something you never forget.
SPangly doesn't think the dates are relevant, *even though* he appears to have figured out that the biggest tides are "around" Christmas.
Figured out *why* this might be?
Can you explain why you think your imprecise local observations of tidal maximums trump the thousands of gauges that say sea level has increased?
The bottom line, Spangly, is that you haven't included the relevant factors in your observations to make them useful.
Perigee causes at most 5 or 6 cm difference between tides, whereas onshore winds easily add up to 50cm or more (7m in New York recently).
By failing to record these influences, you have rendered your comparisons between King Tides invalid.
Now you know why professional users of data have to be careful to keep "raw data" and "adjusted data" separate.
Also a TC crossed the coast near Caloundra on the 23 Jan 1947 which caused a stark surge on Moreton Bay.
Could this be what SD so clearly remembers from 65 years ago?
Or the TC from the 28 Jan 1948?
http://www.australiasevereweather.com/cyclones/impacts-eastcoast.pdf
Stark = storm
Joni, thanks for that link.
That supports what I have been trying to tell you all here for some time.
I'm quite aware that we had cyclones and floods during the wet seasons in the '40s. Even record floods in some parts of the hinterland but these weren't happening during the Christmas periods when I witnessed these king tides. I'm able to tell the difference and recall what is perfect summer sailing weather and what is unsailable cyclonic weather.
I wonder what the cranks would say if the scientists decided to date events using terms such as Spangly's "christmas period" and "school holidays at the height of our summer activities".
"Beautiful weather" is in no way contradictory with "onshore wind".
Joni, if you revisit the old threads here at Deltoid and the ones at Marohasy's swamp you'll see that Drongo's recent commented-on tides have mostly (if not entirely) occurred in the middle or near the end of January.
And yet is appears that Drongo is still oblivious to what he's been told for the last three years...
Up to your usual distractions, Blithering Bernie?
Recent identical king tides occurred on the 14th December 2012 and 12th January 2013, either side of the summer solstice and both prior to the middle of January.
Also well prior to the "wet" and any cyclone influence.
I didn't trouble you with the first king tide result as I couldn't get down for a personal observation but the neighbour had told me that it, too, was below the jetty bearers.
Good God - it simply never stops! Alan Jones meets Sandy Stone, anyone? ;-)
You've got it arse backwards - as someone with "academic science credentials" should know! It is that the "store" is WITHHELD from un-peer-reviewed evidence.
That's why:
To start with, you've certainly been berated for listening to non-experts who are contradicting the overwhelming findings of the relevant experts.
Now you've apparently decided that the opposite of doing that is to take any conclusion by an expert that you like and place it beyond question. That's the same cherry-picking error applied via a different method. (What happens when two experts disagree? Your method must believe both of them! What does science actually do in this situation? Surely your academic science credentials taught you that?!)
The store is not set, as you allege, MERELY because evidence passed pre-publication peer review. That review is just the initial filter. Passing that doesn't mean the work is unimpeachable - as anyone with "academic science credentials", or anyone who read my previous comment on bad peer-reviewed papers should know. It's only the post-publication peer review and the consistency with the best inferences from ALL the evidence that give credence to the work.
So if you look carefully you'll find you've been berated for determinedly ignoring the best inferences from ALL the evidence. (And wait, wasn't there some sort of big process where a whole bunch of scientists took a look at all the evidence and tried to summarise it for non-scientists?)
And as I keep pointing out you are manifestly incompetent to judge the scientific merits, therefore you can't judge whether they are being used "incorrectly" by politicians. Your delusion, however, is remarkably persistent.
Vince, it's a pity I don't talk in that precise peer reviewed scientific jargon which is just so EXACT.
It's also a pity though that it's only the jargon that's exact but the results are so woolly.
However, give yourself time, you never know, you might come to enjoy the sea change of the real world.
Aren't you even more just precious?!
You lie about what he said, refuse to acknowledge it or apologise apparently on the grounds that you did no such thing, and when he graciously allows that maybe you aren't lying when you say you didn't on account of being delusional on that question, you tone troll him and tell him that being lied about is not an issue.
Good grief Lotharsson!
ZZZZZZZZZZZ!
BORING!
Would you like to stop projecting and jumping to conclusions about what I have decided or not decided?
I REALLY DON'T CARE what YOU have 'nuanced' I have or haven't or do or don't or believe or disbelieve.
Read your own post to Wow when he tried this rubbish on with you and follow your own advice for fox ache!
SHEEEESH!
Ah, the "I only quoted it, why did you infer from the context that I share that belief" gambit again. Really?! Does that actually work on anyone else?
Have you ever wondered, seeing as you apparently have this constant run of difficulties with people misinterpreting your words, that maybe you're not communicating your position very clearly?
You might care to pay attention to the qualifier "apparently", which is often used to mean "it appears to me that" - and which admits up front the possibility that the other party may have been misinterpreted, thereby offering them not only the chance but an open invitation to clarify their position so that the misinterpretation can be eliminated.
Or you could ignore it and have a bit of a rant instead. Depends whether you're trying to have a good faith discussion or not, I guess.
What's the summer solstice got to do with it, Spangly?
Are you confusing the solstice with perihelion, which generally occurs about 2 weeks later?
Oh you're a cack, Drongo. You really are.
Have you never figured out why king tides usually occur in January? Vince has generously given you the clue, but I'd be interested to see if you know why the date changes from year to year...
And I hope that you thought to post on:
http://www.witnesskingtides.org/
You should consider writing stories for them too - they'd be agog that your own particular sea wall and the anecdotal jetty disprove the decades-worth of work conducted by thousands of professional scientists.
Oh, and sorry to distract you, but do you have those barometric pressures yet, or alternatively a scientific description of why barometric pressure is not relevant to your tide observations?
And what of John Daly's FUBAR? And the linear regression through an oscillating curve?
And are you boning up on El Niño/La Niña and patterns of ocean current change? Vince has already hinted at the wind issue - to give you a further clue, this matter will be touched upon when we consider wave setup (and tangentially wave runup)... Your homework is piling up old man.
Ironically, Vince's comment on the previous page about King Cnut is itself a clue about a very good resource that would educate you about your gross misunderstanding of sea level oceanography, including setup and runup. Of course, you'd have to trust that a whole bunch of the world's best oceanographers know their shit, so perhaps that resource wouldn't help to make anything stick to the overheated neuron that also has to try to stop you dribbling on the keyboard.
Ouch. Just got out of an excessively boring 2-hour management meeting, eh, Bernard?
Impressed by Green Cross are you Bern?
Thought you might be. About your style.
One of Mikhail's mates.
But I should tell 'em just to spoil their alarmist party.
And you never know, some people do actually pay attention to the real world in spite of their ideology even if Doltoids deny it.
" chameleon
January 15, 2013
Wow,
Trust me."
You have given only indications that you are entirely untrustworthy, cham.
You arrive at a conclusion and then go looking for evidence for it. And when you think you have it, you stop looking or thinking and stick to it.
The massively unintelligent do this all the time.
The masive inertia of stupidity means you will not change your mind.
Truly your worldview can only encompass what you believe in because it's all too complicated for you to figure out unless you pick a choice and keep with it, hell or high water.
"whatever you say I MUST do will not be what I’ll do."
See.
Simple solutions for the simple.
I know the deltoids would have rabidly consumed this paper from John, Neil et al but just in case you didn't: get the message from chameleon the first time here it is again:
Abstract
"Confidence in projections of global-mean sea-level rise (GMSLR) depends on an ability to account for GMSLR during the 20th century. There are contributions from ocean thermal expansion, mass loss from glaciers and ice sheets, groundwater extraction and reservoir impoundment. We have made progress towards solving the “enigma” of 20th-century GMSLR—that is, the observed GMSLR has been found to exceed the sum of estimated contributions, especially for the earlier decades. We propose that: thermal expansion simulated by climate models may previously have been underestimated owing to their not including volcanic forcing in their control state; the rate of glacier mass loss was larger than previously estimated, and was not smaller in the first than in the second half of the century; the Greenland ice-sheet could have made a positive contribution throughout the century; groundwater depletion and reservoir impoundment, which are of opposite sign, may have been approximately equal in magnitude. We show that it is possible to reconstruct the timeseries of GMSLR from the quantified contributions, apart from a constant residual term which is small enough to be explained as a long-term contribution from the Antarctic ice-sheet. The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century."
Sort of sez it all really, hey Tim?
So SD, since you didn't get the message from my reply to chameleon (and do try to keep up yourself, old chap - this paper was cited here weeks ago), do you agree with the implications of that paper, which implies that sea level is going to rise faster than previously thought, and with its claim that sea level has been rising?
Or are you, like sunspot, pretty much only capable of posting evidence that refutes your own claims, and apparently post all sorts of evidence that you don't understand?
And do you agree with the paper the sea level rise - which you claim isn't happening - isn't accelerating much, or do you agree with this demolition of their method for determining that "fact"?
Bizarre.
Spangly: "I know Sea Level isn't rising"
Everybody: "Yes it is"
Spangly: "No it isn't"
Everybody: "Show us your data"
Spangly: "Here is a scientific paper that proves Sea level is rising"
Everybody: "Huh?"
Deltoids!
You are transparent!
The meme is 'listen to the science' but that is NOT what you mean at all!
What you mean is only listen to the science that confirms your preconceived assumptions.
If a 'scientist' or a 'statistician' offers updated information that does not confirm your bias you immediately move into 'ritual academic humiliation' even if they come from organisations like CSIRO!
You have fallen into a trap deltoids.
The 'science' is NOT settled.
That was POLITICS not SCIENCE!
Vince, fascinating how you interpret that. I would have thought more like:
Doltoids: SLR is accelerating.
Me: Not in the real world.
Ds: Yes it is! C&W say so.
Me: C&W have changed their minds [except when interviewed by the ABC that is]
Ds: [hands over eyes, thumbs in ears] NO, NO, NO!
You're a nutter, Chameleon, the paper in question confirms sea level rise is occurring.
If that's your best shot at finding supporting evidence for your denial - it's not looking too good for your sanity, is it?
And are you still going to nutter crank-blogs for your science information, or have you now found the BoM, CSIRO, NOAA websites that present accurate and honest information?
"The ‘science’ is NOT settled"
And, if blinkered people like you have your way, we will require 100% incontrovertible proof before we do anything. And of course by then it will be far too late.
Moreover, proof of anthropogenic-related environmental problems is never absolute. There are those who argued to the bitter end that CFCs do not harm the ozone layer. Many still think it doesn't. There are those who believe that organo-phosphate-based pesticides are not bio-accumulative and therefore should be unregulated. There are those who still think that various estimations of extinction rates are exaggerated or that tropical rain forests should not be protected. There are those who think that hyper-eutrophication of wetlands is not such a big deal, or that introducing exotic species by the truckload into non-native ecosystems is good. There are those who think that acid rain was never much of a threat, or that complete loss of Arctic ice will boost economic activity in the long term.
So your argument is, as usual, moot. Meaningless. You once claimed to have a scientific background but you've blown that to bits since. Your blinkered view is that, as long as the proof is not absolute, then we should do nothing. Arguing with people like you, Chammy, is like trying to win a pissing match with a skunk. Its clear you don't know much about environmental science, and that much of what you think is based on spending way too much time in anti-environmental or contrarian blogs. Certainly you give the impression that you've never read a published, peer-reviewed scientific article in your entire life.
I published 15 articles in scientific journals last year, have 2 out this year and have 7 more in submission at the moment. I know how science works and how2 public policy should proceed. It never does by consensus. If it did, we'd be faced with even more dire environmental predictions now than we already are. This is where the precautionary principle becomes prescient. Ever hear of it? Know how it works? Do you insure your house? Your car? Why? If the chance is <1% that any damage will be incurred, why insure your valuables?
Yet, even if there is a 10% chance that the most dire predictions of the IPCC are correct, my guess is that you will say, ' Let's wait'. At least until the chances are estimated to be what - 50%? 60%? More? Less? At what level do you think the planet's life support systems are valuable enough to insure? Or do you think, like many like-minded deniers here, that humans will persist no matter what we do in the coming years?
You are a deeply confused individual, Drongo.
You deny sea level is rising.
You present the abstract from a paper that confirms sea level is rising.
You therefore QED'd yourself.
As far as acceleration is concerned, assuming you understand the difference between distance/time and distance/time^2 (silly me, it's obvious you don't) it is perfectly visible unless inappropriate statistical methods are used, or inappropriately small samples of data are used. That's not my opinion, that's the result of scientific consensus, ie it is more likely that the majority of experts are right than any minority - a lesson you need to learn before placing any more of these losing bets of yours.
Spangled Drongo
No, C&W haven't changed their minds. That Journal of Climate paper is talking about the 20th century. The plot at the top of this thread is of a longer period. Once you get back into the 19th century the acceleration becomes clear both visually and statistically. This becomes clearer the further back you go. Paleo data over recent centuries makes this very clear. There is a paper by Kemp et al in PNAS in 2011 that makes this very clear.
But what is the message re anthropogenic forcing?
I know you people are not that dense.
Wakey wakey!
NO ONE!!!!! Incuding Spangled D has 'denied' that SL changes.
What is being questioned and tested is the amount that is attributable to human activity.
The latest data is indicating that signal has been OVERSTATED!
NO ONE! !!!! At this thread has claimed there is no influence from humanity.
BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A REALLY STUPID THING TO SAY!
The ONLY people who write that as a statement here are the people who are OVERSTATING the case FOR anthropegenic forcings.
So in essence you are arguing with yourselves.
JeffH has just done it again.
Wakey wakey!
Chameleon:
Spangled Drongo:
Nutters. You should have gotten married 40 years ago and produced some mixed nuts.
"But what is the message re anthropogenic forcing?"
You can find it here:
http://www.ipcc.ch
You really are dense.
"NO ONE!!!!! Incuding Spangled D has ‘denied’ that SL changes."
NO ONE has claimed Spanky has denied that SL changes.
You really are very dense indeed.
"NO ONE! !!!! At this thread has claimed there is no influence from humanity."
Rog does.
But you refuse to acknowledge it has an effect. You refuse the science of how big that effect is.
You really are extremely dense.
"BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A REALLY STUPID THING TO SAY!"
No denier has ever shied away from a blank statement for THAT reason.
"the people who are OVERSTATING the case FOR anthropegenic forcings."
NOBODY here is OVERSTATING the case FOR anthropogenic forcings.
You really have no clue.
From
Global temperature evolution 1979–2010
FEATURED ARTICLE
Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf
Environ. Res. Lett. 6 044022 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022
in
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4
one derives the adjusted global temperature:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/global-temperature-update/
wherein one sees that the trend established in the late 20th century continues in the 21st.
Chebbie, now NO ONE doesn't believe that you're LOSING IT!
SMILEY.
Good grief!
Nope.
It's that Epic Comprehension Fail thing again.
You could, of course, try and (for once) present a coherent and perhaps even cogent argument to support your hypothesis.
I'm predicting you will not. You're far more invested in making the accusation you have in mind than having in mind the correct accusation.
Not exactly - but let's let the error slide for the sake of argument.
If we pretend he hasn't denied that, we'd still have to admit that he's gone one better - he's argued that it is falling dramatically against a huge amount of evidence that it's rising.
You really know how to miss a key point in favour of a less useful one!
Please explain how you infer that.
You'll probably want to examine the factors their paper considered, starting out by specifying which of those them are influenced by anthropogenic factors, and then demonstrate a plausible method for assessing the size of the anthropogenic impact on each.
Oh, wait, I forgot - you've demonstrated you're entirely incompetent at making judgements about scientific matters! Perhaps it would be simpler in this case (and in the future) if you simply pasted the URL you got your views from rather than trying to express them in your own words.
Fixed that for you.
And it's worse than that. Chameleon likes to slag off politicians "on both sides" for "inappropriately using science".
Look, it is true they are both using it inappropriately in some sense.
Neither side is taking it anywhere near seriously enough. Both sides are inappropriately treating the risks as if they are much lower than the science says, and as if we can fruitfully wait for years and years more before getting really serious about dealing with it.
This, of course, is not what chameleon meant, because she almost always misses the key point in order to push her largely ungrounded world view.
This is, and has been in the past, one of chameleon's most unanchored statements.
However one could see how she could think that. Anyone who doesn't grasp most of the points in the argument might be forgiven for thinking there wasn't an argument going on.
And...just for SD and chameleon to ignore yet again, here's a graph showing annual rates of global SLR over the last century and more - it's the solid red curve.
SD (and chameleon), take a look. See how it's quite a lot higher in recent times than it was in the early part of the century? Most people would consider that "acceleration".
Which part of the concluding sentences in the abstract need some 'nuancing from you Lotharsson, Wow et al?
Here:
The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.”
THE ISSUE IS THE ANTHROPOGENIC FORCING!
GOT IT?
Is there some sort of special scientific definition of WEAK OR ABSENT that we all need to be aware of?
Whether there is a consistent trend or not:
but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.”
The UPDATED DATA that was used in this paper (and it has indeed ticked all the proper professional boxes to reach publication) is NOT showing a strong correlation between SLR and ANTHROPOGENIC FORCINGS!
GOT IT?
You or I may not agree with it BUT THAT'S WHAT THIS PARTICULAR PAPER HAS CONCLUDED!
THEY HAVE NOT BEEN UNSCRUPULOUS OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD INFER AS SINISTER AND QUESTIONABLE!
And please don't forget these are genuine people who have spent a lot of time and effort. I'm quite sure they were rather shocked by the conclusions as well.
And Vince,
Count yourself very lucky that I simply can't be bothered to cut and paste isolated comments from you and use them out of context throughout this thread.
Spangled D may feel differently of course, but I would see it as a complete waste of time.
Nitpicking little bits and pieces and IGNORING the actual point of the message is a well known and very old political practice of 'shooting the mesenger'
It's crashingly boring and has nothing to do with the actual point of disagreement here.
BRAIN MELT imminent ALERT!
I can't decide, Chebbie: is watching you attempting to participate in this debate more like watching a cat trying to play a grand piano, or a dog chew a very large and sticky toffee?
Bill,
I can't decide whether watching you attempting to participate in this debate via your completely irrelevant personal comments is more like watching an octupus climbing out of a string bag or a cat on a hot tin roof?
Church - you know, the guy listed as one of the authors, said in response to the claim (in The Australian) that the anthropogenic-SLR relationship was absent:
Are you asserting that you understand what the paper says better than one of the authors does - apparently on the basis of your interpretation of a sentence in the abstract (which may turn out to not be supported by the paper itself)?
Why yes, I believe you (and SD) are!
The main issue of the paper is an attempt to close the SLR budget.
The implication with respect to the relationship between SLR and anthropogenic forcing appears to be (as I haven't seen a copy of the paper yet) predicated on the claim that SLR has not accelerated much if at all, but as is clearly evident - if only by merely inspecting the graph that I pointed you to - that claim is erroneous.
If that implication is indeed predicated on an error, then the implication is not well founded. Do you have any evidence that the implication survives the error, or are you just assuming that because the claim was made in a paper that survived pre-publication peer review that it must be correct? If their error were corrected and they had instead written:
...would you still be quoting it?
Did you read and understand this article which I and others pointed people to? (Silly question, I know.) The author makes his point of view quite clear [my emphasis]:
Do you understand what this author is saying? The only way the paper you cite can close the budget - their main conclusion - is by relying on warming which we know is heavily due to anthropogenic forces over the century. And they don't appear to have examined the link between temperature and SLR rates, so the abstract's statement on that front does not appear to be supported by their work.
And if you do disagree with this post (which you appear to, because you're still pushing the conclusion from that paper that he disagrees with), on what basis is your disagreement founded?
Did you bother to read and understand this article that I pointed you to? He's read the actual paper. He points out that there is a:
Wait, wait, how can that be?! Your interpretation of the abstract says otherwise! That MUST trump what the research actually says, right?!
Lotharsson at the Matt Ridley thread:
‘The other key point was that the scientific findings do NOT rest on what is reported about them, despite an a (perhaps rhetorical) claim to the contrary.’
Lotharsson here:
'Did you read and understand this article which I and others pointed people to? (Silly question, I know.) The author makes his point of view quite clear [my emphasis]:'
So which lecture from the almighty Lotharsson should I bow and scrape and genufluct to?
And Lotharsson, this one is absolutely priceless:
If their error were corrected and they had instead written:
The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no significant acceleration, despite the over the century with increasing anthropogenic forcing largely matched by decreasing natural variability.
…would you still be quoting it?
Ummmmm?
Please forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious but:
That's not what it said.
Further, if they wanted to write that then I would reasonably assume they would've done so. They are after all coherent, professional and respected climate scientists who work for organisations such as CSIRO.
But INSTEAD, they concluded thus:
but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.”
Have you ever heard of the term 'moot question' or 'redundant question''?
I think you folks prefer to call it a 'strawman'.
I sincerely wish you would follow your own advice when Wow tried this nonsense on you Lotharsson.
You were actually making a modicum of sense at that point.
Right now you are just arguing for arguments sake.
Indeed Bill ... a *very* tough call.
Mind you, I was at the hairdresser this afternoon and SHE reckons the cat will probably be pumping out Rachmaninoff before Chebbie gets a clue.
Indeed, and the explanation for that result is the inappropriate use of a quadratic.
A quadratic is a form of modelling that has been used before by people obtaining erroneous results for their climate analyses.
If you want to understand why, you could read this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/dont-estimate-acc…
It's fairly likely that the writers of that paper would agree, as they aren't the sort to fail to learn from others' work.
Both of course! They're only mutually exclusive in your fevered and increasingly unreliable imagination.
They are both operating from the same scientific philosophy. Test the claims by looking at the evidence and logic as claimed (not merely as reported by someone else). If you have evidence of some personal competence, test them yourself to the limits of your competence. Either way, and far more importantly, find out what has happened when people who are far more competent have tested them.
And then test their claims about the claims to the limits of your own competence. And then find out what other people of far more competence have found when they test the claims about the claims. And so on.
Nowhere in this description is a "but it appeared in one just published peer-reviewed paper therefore you must not test it". Especially when the one peer review paper has many arrayed against the conclusion you are touting.
And of course, you don't have any excuse for not already knowing this, right, because you have "academic science qualifications"?
We know.
And we know you know.
And we know that you know that we know.
Etc.
You really don't have to say it again. That won't make your apparent insistence on the statement's accuracy any more convincing. Nor will it address the reasons why the statement looks like it won't stand up to extended scrutiny, no matter how loudly you clap and chant "it won't happen, it won't happen".
If you want to discuss the reasoning that leads to the strong expectation that the statement won't stand up to scrutiny, please do so. But asserting such discussion is moot is fallacious. (For one thing that discussion, on a more professional and formal level, embodies a large part of the scientific process.)
Imagine, if you will, just after the publication of McLean, Carter and de Freitas - in a peer reviewed journal, no less - if you had jumped up and down and stomped your feet and insisted "but that's what the paper concluded" about their results when people pointed out (even on blogs, fr goodness sake!) the obvious error in their methodology? How would that tantrum be looking right now, given that those issues were written up and published in a peer reviewed paper that has apparently stood the test of subsequent peer review and the paper is widely considered - by those far more competent professionals - as one of the worst peer-reviewed climate science of all time?
Your mind reading attempt and its abject failure has been noted. Perhaps you should stick to things you have some demonstrated competence in. Demonstrated, as in demonstrated to other people, not imagined.
Graham Lloyd, the climate science misrepresenter who wrote the story on sea level in The Australian that the clueless clowns above (you know who you are shapeshifter) are relying on now admits he got it wrong. The online version of the article has been pulled and the usual small apology buried in an inside page has been printed.
http://www.readfearn.com/2013/01/the-australian-admits-it-misinterprete…
Surely, the final nail in the coffin that contains the mouldering remains of The Australian's credibility?
At what point will somebody develop the gumption to stand up in one of Chris Mitchell's management meetings and tell him (and the entire room) what an utter disaster he has visited upon this once well-respected paper?
There's a fascinating phenomenon occurring here.
The denialist side is populated with semi-literate (and in some cases borderline illiterate) folk who, if they ever sat through a science class at all during their time at school, would have been the ones who failed or who scraped a 'C' or a 'D' at best, and who would have spitefully noogied the 95%+ achieving geeks to compensate.
And these same folk imaginethat they can suddenly, in their Dunningly-Krugered adulthood, take on the professional scientific world and proclaim it incompetent and fraudulent, based on nothing more than their failed comprehension of school-level science and a determination that they can figure out why the laws of nature are subservient to their conservative ideology.
Isn't it amazing how school dunces and standover artists, even when all growed-up, still think that they can shape the laws of nature to any pretzel that suits their own opinions?
I think the sobering fact is that politics generously encompasses the all-growed-up school bullies, dunces, and standover artists.
I am impressed with Nick Xenophon (from a distance), but we still get no end of Steve Fieldings, Nick Minchins, and Tony Abbots.
Show us YOUR data Bernie.
About the best YOU can do is rabbit on about how a couple of ocean-savvy scientists in 1841 put a benchmark at "near high water level".
Why would they do that?
Drongo, sea level is rising. It's a fact. Man up and admit it.
I suspect Rupert is getting exactly what he wants, and he doesn't see that as a disaster - he sees it as a useful deployment of a business resource.
Yeah Vince, all over the world except Moreton Bay.
At last! You understand!
It doesn't have to rise everywhere at the same rate!
But we only have your word SD, that you are remembering a king tide from 1946, and not the storm surges that I linked to earlier which occurred around the same time.
Show you data, Drongo?
I' started referring you to data three years ago, and you've studiously avoided facing it the whole time.
And anyway, you started this silliness. How about you follow through with data of your own - something more substantial than a couple of photos of some shorelines.
I blieve that this is known as the ball being in your court. Thus far all you've managed are faults and a complete inability to return serves.
SD quotes "nullius in verba" - but then expects everyone to take his word for it.
I don't think he sees the issue with that.
As I have already said, my data was always obtained prior to any of the cyclones which occur from late summer through to winter. If you wanted to verify this you would have to talk to other old residents.
But you Ds have no data, only denial.
But you embrace the gravy meter.
Spangled drongo
According to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/tc.shtml) the Australian tropical cyclone season typically runs from 1 November to 30 April. This is very different to your "late summer through to winter". Please enlighten me as to what I am missing.
Perhaps you could also enlighten us to what "But you embrace the gravy meter." is about.
It seems Spangled Drongo's incredibly precise data collection on Cyclone dates has been falsified.
Where does this leave his incredibly precise data collection on historical sea levels, I wonder?
Shorter Lotharsson,
'that won't make your apparent insistence that the paper doesn't 'nuance' correctly according to Lotharsson's interpretation go away.
Otherwise you will hurt Vince's Brain.
You aren't getting it are you?
It is yet ANOTHER paper that presents the data yet ANOTHER way.
They are all interesting.
They will all probably have pieces of the climate puzzle in them.
They are ALL open to interpretation Lotharsson.
Typically, instead of actually considering the findings we have the extremists all 'intellectually nuancing'.
WTF is that supposed to mean, Chameleon?
"Shorter" means....er..."Shorter", and yet the (apparently meaningless) sentence that follows is *longer* than either of Lotharsson's previous 2 posts.
I'm amazed you manage to even feed yourself.
Good grief!
Look, you should perhaps refrain from using words whose meaning you don't understand.
Like considering.
My comments are a result of my consideration of the paper.
Good grief, this thread is still running! After a quick scan it seems there is some commentary about the Church and White paper which I've not read, nor have I read the various articles/commentary about it. But is the the view here that this paper is erroneous in one or more of its conclusions?
My apologies for not doing my own bloody research as Bernard so delightfully puts it - I have a day job. And my wife is always happy to explain what my night jobs are.
I'm not after anything more than a potted summary, but if that's too much to ask I will try to make the time, but it's hard. there is after all so much to read at WUWT including Willis' latest marvellous offerings.
Is there a link to the paper anywhere? Has this paper been discussed, or was it referenced in Church and White?
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Le…
Why would you read anything at WUWT?
It's a disinformational crank-site run by a liar in the pay of Heartland.
"there is after all so much to read at WUWT including Willis’ latest marvellous offerings."
Yeah, why wouldn't you get your "science" from a massage parlour crank, posting on the weblog (not even a website) of an exposed fossil fuel industry shill's site, rather than from accredited scientists. It's no doubt the reason the IPCC has it all wrong, and you whackos are so confident in your stupidity.
The paper, as has been linked a number of times here, has been discussed at RealClimate as part of the two-part article. There were also some links posted to some discussion at readfearn.net.
It would not surprise me if some or all of the core conclusions were ultimately found to be valid, although there appears to be an ongoing disagreement about the different methods of predicting sea level rise and this paper plays a role in that.
Key parts of the couple of sentences that have been trumpeted around the denialosphere and The Australian (which has now retracted the article in question) appear to be pretty clearly based on faulty methodology, as the tutorial linked from one of those RealClimate articles shows.
Do you realise there's this "Google" thing that will help you find this stuff?
Google is dangerous if your intention is not to inform yourself but to find only reinforcement for preconceived notions.
That's why WUWT is so good - not much danger of encountering any information over there.
WUWT disinformation:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/he-knows-not-what-hes-doing/
Like saying, there are so many ways to waste your life.
"the Australian tropical cyclone season typically runs from 1 November to 30 April. This is very different to your “late summer through to winter”. Please enlighten me as to what I am missing"
Neil, that might be the BoM's idea of when cyclones arrive but we have had many outside that period. As late as July.
In this period in 1967 Gold Coast beaches were seversly eroded and I was involved in dumping car bodies onto beaches along with tens of thousands of sandbags to stop high rise buildings from fallig into the sea.
Yet we have never had a cyclone affect Moreton Bay prior to January in the last 67 years.
Even in the coral sea it is rare to get a cyclone in December let alone November.
So apparently you have been missing quite a bit.
Lol.
According to SPangly, he knows more about cyclones than BoM does.
Did you check those dates Vince?
Or, like Berdie Num Nums and Neil, is your data MIA too?
Drongo,
I directed you to the CSIRO's work years ago. As you seem to be having profound difficulty locating it, here's the URL:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_data_cmar.html
You, on the other hand, have produced nothing more than two happy-snaps backed by no relevant data, and some second hand "Just So" stories that are just as unevidenced as your holiday photos.
Today I had the pleasure of listening to Professor Jean Palutikof, amongst a number of other IPCC lead authors. She is located in your neck of the woods Drongo, only a few minutes drive from your legendary river wall. I think that she would be most surprised to hear your story that global sea levels are decreasing, and that the consensus science is all a fraud and a scam.
If you haven't the courage to provide your data to us, please explain why you don't at least take the walk over to set her straight, and to overturn consensus science in the process. She's very nice, and I am sure that she would be interested in your incomparable expertise.
"Today I had the pleasure of listening to Professor Jean Palutikof"
And did you, perchance Bernie, ask her if the city in which you say she lives, with its enormous sea frontage, is producing any evidence of SLR, let alone accelerated SLR?
Or are trivial details like that not discussed in those upper levels of La La Land when the gravy meter is being cranked up to the max?
IOW, did she show you her data?
Drongo, when one is rubbing shoulders with a foyer full of the world's most eminent cliamtologists, one does not ask then about a river wall in the Nerang or a lighthouse in Moreton Bay. You are simply not that important, or relevant - please check your ego at the door.
However, Jean works a few blocks from your wall on Chevron Island, and she is very accessible for those who wish to learn. If you have a correction for climatologists and oceanographers, who better to speak with than an IPCC lead author who works around the corner, and who is intimately familiar with the subject you pretend to overturn.
Let us know how you go with the conversation.
Did Spangly just ask me for *data*?
Ha HA AHAHHAHAHAHAH. That's so funny.
Bernard, did they have a secret session in which all 400 of them agreed to conspire to invent a climate catastrophe with which to help usher in a new era of UN Global Government?
It's either that or the people that infest WUWT are raving loons, one or the other, so I'm just checking.
"Drongo, when one is rubbing shoulders with a foyer full of the world’s most eminent cliamtologists, one does not ask ..."
Of course not Bernie, I understand perfectly.
You couldn't possibly look them in the eye and ask them what they have actually witnessed and what they really believe.
It just wouldn't do. Too, too embarrassing!
Besides, it might even cause the gravy meter to malfunction.
Yes Vincie, I did.
Do you happen to have ever wiped the window clean enough to peer outside to garner a little real life experience for yourself?
Well, here are some "data" that resemble yours in quality and usefulness:
I've been going to the same beach since I was a child and I've noticed that more and more sand is washing away at high tides now than ever before. Obviously sea level is rising.
Now, I wonder why the taxpayer bothers funding clever people with PhDs to answer complex questions when everybody could just listen to Spangly and my "data" to learn the truth?
"I’m amazed you manage to even feed yourself."
She has a nurse to do that for her.
You've actually been to a BEACH, Vincie?
I'm impressed. Tell us more.
When it comes to data, you warmists are very reluctant to abandon your alarmist views particularly where research money is dependant upon these views. You find it very hard to let go and often do some very unscientific things to push your paradigm.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/more-on-giss-t…
Data fiddling is only part of your skulduggery with the gravy meter.
My Gravy Meter suggests you're well into the brown there, Spangly. Deep in it, in fact...
Crap.
As it happens we did speak about the veracity of the global climatological and oceanographic data. Having the chance to speak to six lead authors really puts things in perspective - I highly recommend it. We also spoke about denialism and about the inability of people such as you to allow yourselves to be informed, and to resist any attempts to do so.
And you do have the opportunity to visit your local IPCC lead aurthor. Not everyone has a top-level IPCC scientist working 5 minutes from their home, and given your rabid obsession with sea level rise the first thing that you should be doing is rushing over to speak with Jean Palutikof and educating either her or yourself.
You have no more excuses you daft old bugger. All that you have is a choice:
1) address the questions that have accumulated over three years,
2) go for a walk around your very own corner and confront the Evil Empire that you believe is trying to perpetrate the Greatest Conspiracy of All Time, or
3) continue to bleat impotently on the blogosphere and thereby prove that you have nothing do but promulgate but hearsay and pseudoscientic mythology.
Note that the above choices are not actually mutually exclusive.
Spangled Drongo still hasn't addressed the irony of his (3 year long) plea to "take my word for it, damnit!"...whilst ritually holding up crossed fingers and chanting "nullius in verba" when presented with actual data...
...and whilst taking the word of non-scientists that the scientific data has been fraudulently altered or shows something other than what the scientists say.
Cognitive dissonance - ur doin it rite.
"As it happens we did speak about the veracity of the global climatological and oceanographic data."
I bet you played a blinder, Bern.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/1/18/actons-blind-eye.html
Lothe, at least my data is pier revewed.
“As it happens we did speak about the veracity of the global climatological and oceanographic data.”
So level with me Bern, was Jean sceptical of accelerated SLR?
And what about you? After 1700 odd comments you really haven't said anything. I'd like to know just where you stand on this.
Like John and Neil, you seem to say different things at different times to different people.
Does Jean support JH on this or is she a bit sceptical, like me.
And I'm still waiting for your opinion.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/hansen-1986-two-degrees-w…
“As it happens we did speak about the veracity of the global climatological and oceanographic data.”
And did you broach the subject of adjustments with her?
And whether she also supports them?
The reason I ask is that I don't want to go back over old ground:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/?s=nasa+giss+adjustments
Spangles - Can you just refresh my memory (because I can't be fussed for the moment trawling through 1700 posts in this thread, and it might have been elsewhere anyway) - did you actually witness the 1947 high tide, or just see the after-effects (high water mark or whatever)? Do you recall if it occurred during daytime or nighttime?
"I’m impressed"
Since you're impressed by Watts' bollocks, this is rather damning with faint praise from you.
"or is she a bit sceptical, like me."
No.
Drongo says:
Give it up you doddering old fool.
You have no excuse anymore - go speak with Jean Palutikof if you really believe your own fairytale, or just shut the hell up and stop pretending that you are the fairy godmother of denialism, parading around as you do in your tutu of sparkly pseudoscientific fishnet.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - even Tim Curtin, master of scientific clangers, had the guts to attempt to put his case to the profession, and to put up evidence, no matter how tenuous it always ended up being.
You have nothing more than a couple of holiday snaps that don't mean anything at all.
You are intellectualyl impotent.
Here we go again, exactly the point I was making on one of the Ridley threads in response to Chameleon's jibe about many on Deltoid who resort to conspiracy theories. Yet Drongo follows the denier script:
"When it comes to data, you warmists are very reluctant to abandon your alarmist views particularly where research money is dependant upon these views"
No evidence needs ever be produced to support this crap. Yet the deniers use it all the time. I could provide plenty of evidence where prominent deniers are on the corporate/think tank payroll. But the deniers abhor this, arguing that a person's views should based on their science and not on those who pay them. Then these hypocrites go back to the grant funding canard.
Bernard is right. Drongo belongs with Jonas and other like-minded nincompoops.
Yep - it's those scientists driving around in Ferraris and flying to the Caymans for their weekends we have to worry about....
He seems to admit that it is conceivable that money could buy corrupt scientific opinions. So he's halfway to perhaps realizing what the nutter crank blogs by Bishop Hill and Steven Goddard (FFS! Goddard, Spangly?) are all about.
FrankD, yes I witnessed more than one king tide of that era [between 1946 & 1953] that came over the lawn.
They invariably arrived mid morning in near-perfect summer weather in the early part of the school holidays when sailing and boating activities were at their peak.
I don't remember ever getting out of bed to witness the winter king tides at night.
"You are intellectualyl impotent."
Happy to admit it Bern [whatever it means], hence my nom de plume.
We are all fools Bern but the biggest fools are the ones that fool themselves.
But it is interesting that with all these comments from you intellectualyl potentates, you do not provide any observations whatsoever of your own.
At least you, Bern, have threatened to muster up some of your mates' obs over the years [still waiting for those] but the rest of you Ds have got zippo, zilch to put forward.
I can only assume that when such intellectual marvels haven't got two observations between them to rub together, if anyone presents anything concrete to challenge their ideology, the only defence they have left is insults.
That and the gravy meter.
"arguing that a person’s views should based on their science and not on those who pay them."
If only, Jeff, if only. You still don't get it do you?
Tide gauge at the Battery, New York Harbor:
http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=okx&gage=batn6
And Bern, I'm more than happy to speak to any scientist. I was just sounding you out on both your and her sceptical capacity.
Like answering if you [and she] are sceptical of accelerated SLR???
It's you that seems to want to run from reality.
mine:
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml
Now, show us yours.
Very good Vincie. Not your data but at least something good.
What do you reckon it's telling you Vincielove?
Whoops! Has the gravy meter struck a rough patch?
http://notrickszone.com/2013/01/19/spiegel-ends-europes-climate-deniali…
"My Gravy Meter suggests you’re well into the brown there, Spangly. Deep in it, in fact…"
Seeing as I don't use a gravy meter bill, I don't have that problem but for those who do, I suppose it's one of the risks you take.
So....no data then Spangles?
You can show us your code at least, right?
Here're my data Vincie, seeing as you don't seem to be able to read.
They agree very well with yours.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/01/king-tide-not-so-high/
You've ignored or actively denied most of the observations previously put to you. That makes it easy to lie by claiming "you do not provide any observations of your own".
Nice photo, Spangles, but where are your data?
Where is your code?
You are making assertions on sea level and as far as I can make out you have nothing whatsoever to backup those assertions.
Here is the story, as revealed by over 1 million measurements per year, each measurement accompanied by contextual data on barometric pressure, etc, etc:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
I doubt there is an alternate reality sufficiently bizarre enough that your alternative data would merit anymore than than a brief snort of laughter.
You are a ridiculous joke, as are the cranks and nutters who egg you on over at Marohasy's.
Stop frothing Vincie and tell me what "your" data says.
Golly, the silly old sod is so far gone he can't even read a chart!
The Seaside Twilight Home for the Terminally Bewildered beckons...
Have to say I loved the one where he wouldn't be prepared to talk to an expert in the field unless that expert was prepared to demonstrate that they were sufficiently 'skeptical' in advance: i.e. concede he's right!
Seriously, you couldn't make it up.
I'll bet he has an adoring audience at Marohasy's. I sincerely hope he continues to do so - the more time they spend determining the height of the excrements in Paradise the better...
Spangly's getting forgetful - here it is again:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
As I said, based on well over a million data points per annum, as opposed to your effort which seems to be based on...nothing, as far as I can see.
"Here is the story, as revealed by over 1 million measurements per year"
Oh, the irony is exquisite, Vincie. Your data doesn't agree with that gravy meter. And neither does mine.
I rest my case.
The CSIRO data versus SD's anecdotes from >65 years ago.
I know which I trust.
We should be so lucky!
Joni, bill, Vincie, Bern and Lothe would trust the gravy meter everytime rather than their lying eyes.
Wonder why???
That's OK. Disclosures for Doltoids are purely voluntary.
But tell me, is it more conflict of interest than conflict of ideology?
Dunno, Spangly, you tell us why you want to ignore reality and hide behind your flimsy screen of nonsense.
Ah, SD, I see you're still resorting to lying about the difference in our positions.
The humour of watching you do it kinda wore off a while back - and it's clear you refuse to think and refuse to take on board additional evidence.
I think I'll leave you to it for a while.
SD
Simple, give us the actual real dates of your tides.
...and the windspeed and direction, and the barometric pressure for each of your measurements.
The competent experts wouldn't pretend their data was worth looking at without at least that much.
You-all don't get how amazing it is that you can keep reading the gravy meter and convince yourselves that it is the real world without going outside and checking.
Even when Vince quotes Fort Denison as his data he doesn't read what it's telling him.
And you think I'm in denial
SD
And still you do not want to give us dates.
I wonder why?
... or measurements even.
Because he doesn't have any.
Anthony Watts' money is dependent on continuing the crusade for the Oil industry.
Monckton's money is dependent on continuing to say what the picked audience wants to hear.
MkIntyre's job depends on the Fossil Fuel industry continuing to work at peak capacity.
SD, I'd like you to provide proof that research funding is a gravy train that relies on environmental scares. I am fed up with this crap - yet you and other deniers use it as your get-out-of-jail-free card.
I'm more than certain that if I was a climate scientist who bucked the consensus then I'd not have much trouble getting big bucks from various corporate sources. But of course - that's already the case. Its been proven time and time again that many of the most prominent deniers are on the corporate payroll and/or are affiliated with right wing think tanks that act as mouthpieces for industry.
Your claim is based 100% on nothing more than blind guessing.
Scientists will say anything to make money. They just love their flash cars and natty suits.
Uh, hang on - that's Real Estate agents. Scientists wear corduroy pants and drive Toyota Camry stationwagons. Because they love money so much.
There are loads of PhDs where I work but only the lucky ones crack even 80Kpa.
They are very clever people, Spangly, and if they wanted to lie for a living, they'd be working in sales earning 300Kpa no problems at all.
That's not what they choose to do.
Joni, I thought your question was the most interesting bit of what has otherwise been 1800 posts of whack-a-mole, so I did some digging and I believe I can answer your question on behalf of the Spangled one. Excuse the digression, I hope to head off later arguments.
Despite Spangly invoking the solstice more times than your average druid, "king tides" (I shudder at the term), have nothing to do with the solstice. They are related to the perigee (closest approach of the moon) and the perihelion (earths closest approach to the sun). The perihelion currently occurs on Jan 5th, while the perigee of the moon is variable - of course, it occurs once a month, but how close it gets varies. Closer perigees are seen around mid-summer and mid-winter, and cause higher tides at those times.
Now, if Spangles actually wanted to answer your question, he could check the 1947 tide times in the archives of his local rag (what's that, the Examiner?), but he's clearly unwilling to do that, so all I'm offering here is an informed guess, based on the fact the the "king tide" occurs at or near the full or new moon that is closest the the nearest perigee that occurs close to perihelion. (phew!).
1. Perihelion precesses, advancing by one day every 58 years, so in 1947, perihelion occurred on 3/1/47 a little before midnight.
2. The nearest full or new moon to that time was the full moon a bit before 5 am UTC on 7/1/47.
3. Importantly, the moon also reached perigee at 13:37 UTC on 6/1/47 (about 15 hours before full moon). A small offset between full/new and perigee means a higher tide, and 15 hours is a relatively small offset.
4. The closest perigee at that time had occurred around 9 December '46. Nevertheless, the January perigee was quite a quite a close one, which again would have made for a still higher tide.
Now, all those times are UTC, and you'd need to add 10 hours for Gold Coast time which means perigee would have occurred just before midnight on 6/1/47 and astronomical full moon would have occurred at 15:00 local on the 7th (ie it was more or less full on the nights of the 6th-7th and 7th-8th). These three factors occurring so close together would have made for a very high tide - a king tide, in fact - probably on the morning of the 7th.
So, I don't believe that the 1947 summer king tide was the same event to the cyclone driven flood of 23/1/47. That flood coincided with the next New Moon, but the moon was a little past apogee (furthest distance from earth) and further past perihelion, so while the cyclone did coincide with a spring tide, it would have been a relatively low one (as a spring tide, it was still quite high, obviously).
However, even though they were seperate events, that cyclone drove a half-metre storm surge into Moreton Bay, plus a lot of flooding on the Nerang, and there is no way on gods green earth that those combined with the next spring tide could have been lower at Spanglies benchmark than the king tide two weeks earlier.
So while I'm prepared (personally of course, YMMV) to stipulate that the king tide occurred on the 7th and the cyclone arrived on the 23rd, I do not believe for a nanosecond that the former was higher than the latter. It's my considered opinion that the Drongo, who must be rising 80 if he was there in 47, has simply conflated the two events at a distance of 60+ years. All of us will probably find ourselves doing the same if we reach that age.
Of course, Spangles could have saved a lot of pointless discussion for the regulars, and a hour's googling for me, by simply adducing some evidence to support his argument. But clearly thats not how the sill old bugger rolls. I thought Bill's (?) characterisation as Alan Jones meets Sandy Stone was bang on.
But even if by some miracle, the January '47 king tide was higher than the storm surge, he has still failed to address two other points that vitiate his whole argument:
1.It is well known that the MSL is rising less than average along the south coast of Queensland, at less than 2 mm per year and above average at other places (13 mm/yr in the Gulf of Carpentaria for one). So his notion (absolutely critical to his argument) that sea level rises uniformly is unadulterated bollocks, a point he has steadfastly ignored.
2.Since 1947 repeated dredging has been done near his precious benchmark, with 1.5 metres being taken off the bottom after the 1974 (cyclone-driven) floods almost overtopped the nearest bridge. Again, this is something he has steadfastly ignored (or rather brushed off with his "agressively seeking equilibrium" twaddle.
Thanks Frank. Good work... now let's see if SD comes back with an actual date of his anecdotes.
FrankD, Joni, Vince et al. Go back and read my times of obs relative to any cyclonic influences. The measurements too.
Please pay attention.
And note that east coast tide gauges support my claims.
"There are loads of PhDs where I work but only the lucky ones crack even 80Kpa"
You make my point very well Vince.
Your "times", as in , "some time in late January"?
Which kind of high-precision scientific instrument are you using for these "measurements"?
"Your “times”, as in , “some time in late January”?"
Some are determined to be simply dumb, others, fradulent:
“Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications
Ferric C. Fang R. Grant Steen and Arturo Casadevall
PNAS PNAS 2012 109 (42) 16751-16752; doi:10.1073/iti4212109
“Abstract
A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
If only someone would do an investigative paper like that on climate science.
Think how much money it would save the taxpayer.
But when anyone can be a member....
You a member, Vince?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/07/friday-funny-the-newest-member-of…
This is an ongoing saga. Stay tuned:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/20/sunday-silliness-kenji-takes-on-t…
Old man, you and the plot have permanently parted company. Stop embarrassing yourself.
When Spangly finally retracts his nonsense, it won't be because of errors OR fraud: it will be because he had no data whatsoever in the first place.
How do you reckon those biomedical researchers would have go ton if they published their stuff based on the kind of vague non-information you seem to rely on, Spangly?
Additionally, you're still relying on nutter crank-blog, WUWT for your infotainment?
When do you get a clue?
This is an ongoing saga this weeks distraction from the new BEST report. Milk it everywhere for all you're worth, fellow morons.
Corrected that for you, Spanky.
What's Spangly on about?
I'm not about to risk my sanity by clicking on a link to that nutter crank blog run by Anthony Watts and called WUWT.
I could answer that Vince, but then I'd have to neuralyze everyone reading this thread.
Vol 1, Issue 1, hey chek?
Looks like he had to start his own journal to get it published.
How embarrassing.
Ah, Spangly has the party line down-pat already!
Can't handle a few facts from Tony Watts, hey Vince?
How about your mates from UEA then?
As in: "Children just aren't going to know what snow is"
How's that workin' out for ya?
Good to see you read a little wider these days, biil.
At least you're one up on Vince.
Why would you use the word "facts" and the name "Anthony Watts" in the same sentence?
Isn't Watts the clueless TV weatherman who collected hundreds of photos of weather stations in order to show they were skewed by UHI only to find the effect was the total opposite from what he had been claiming?
Watts' entire thesis was blown out of the water by his own research.
Surprised he's still limping along - even more surprised anybody still visits his pointless blog.
"Isn’t Watts the clueless TV weatherman who collected hundreds of photos of weather stations in order to show they were skewed by UHI only to find the effect was the total opposite from what he had been claiming?"
You mean Vince, you were so stupid as to believe all that "BEST" scatology?
For example, do you actually BELIEVE that an asphalt airfield in the Arctic where they keep the thermometer WON'T register a warmer temperature than the surrounding ice and snow?
Even NOAA didn't believe that shit even though they wouldn't admit it and have just completed studies on it:
"Biases Associated with Air Temperature Measurements near Roadways and Buildings
Wednesday, 9 January 2013: 9:15 AM Room 15 (Austin Convention Center)
John Kochendorfer, NOAA, Oak Ridge, TN; and C. B. Baker, E. J. Dumas Jr., D. L. Senn, M. Heuer, M. E. Hall, and T. P. Meyers
Abstract
Proximity to buildings and paved surfaces can affect the measured air temperature. When buildings and roadways are constructed near an existing meteorological site, this can affect the long-term temperature trend. Homogenization of the national temperature records is required to account for the effects of urbanization and changes in sensor technology. Homogenization is largely based on statistical techniques, however, and contributes to uncertainty in the measured U.S. surface-temperature record. To provide some physical basis for the ongoing controversy focused on the U.S. surface temperature record, an experiment is being performed to evaluate the effects of artificial heat sources such as buildings and parking lots on air temperature. Air temperature measurements within a grassy field, located at varying distances from artificial heat sources at the edge of the field, are being recorded using both the NOAA US Climate Reference Network methodology and the National Weather Service Maximum Minimum Temperature Sensor system. The effects of the roadways and buildings are quantified by comparing the air temperature measured close to the artificial heat sources to the air temperature measured well-within the grassy field, over 200 m downwind of the artificial heat sources."
Do keep up. The chickens are coming home.
Don' make a bigger idiot of yourself than you can possibly help. I know that's hard, though.
Drongo says:
That's what we been trying to tell you for three years.
But you simply persist in fooling yourself, no matter how many times it's explained to you.
I've directed you many times to data, and to my graphing of data. You just ignore it because to confront it would cause that gear-crunching cognitive dissonance that you're so desperate to avoid.
However, in the spirit of your standard of "data collection", I can relate this little anecdote:
A few years ago the January tides were such that the jetty at the lab where I worked was soaked by calm seas. The jetty was built in the first half of last century (just like yours) and the old fishers around here that I've spoken with reckon that it used to take a stiff nor'easter/sou'easter to wet the jetty.
This also begs the question applicable to both your jetty and mine - why would the builders construct the height so that the jetties were effectively flooded on high tides at least twice a year? My jetty was a working commercial fishing jetty, and the last thing that the fishers who use it today want is the bloody mess that they have to put up with if they're working on the jetty at high tide.
Seems to me that the tide you keep harping on about wasn't a run-of-the-mill tide - and without any data you'll never be able to make a case otherwise.
Oh, I have sceptical capacity. This is why I don't give any credence to your "Just So" story about sea level.
Drongo says:
That's what we been trying to tell you for three years.
But you simply persist in fooling yourself, no matter how many times it's explained to you.
I've directed you many times to data, and to my graphing of data. You just ignore it because to confront it would cause that gear-crunching cognitive dissonance that you're so desperate to avoid.
However, in the spirit of your standard of "data collection", I can relate this little anecdote:
A few years ago the January tides were such that the jetty at the lab where I worked was soaked by calm seas. The jetty was built in the first half of last century (just like yours) and the old fishers around here that I've spoken with reckon that it used to take a stiff nor'easter/sou'easter to wet the jetty.
This also begs the question applicable to both your jetty and mine - why would the builders construct the height so that the jetties were effectively flooded on high tides at least twice a year? My jetty was a working commercial fishing jetty, and the last thing that the fishers who use it today want is the bloody mess that they have to put up with if they're working on the jetty at high tide.
Seems to me that the tide you keep harping on about wasn't a run-of-the-mill tide - and without any data you'll never be able to make a case otherwise.
Oh, I have sceptical capacity. This is why I don't give any credence to your "Just So" story about sea level.
I am sceptical, which is why I carefully review the data. And my conclusion after looking at the data is that there is an acceleration of sea level rise.
As far as Jean Palutikof's thoughts on the matter go, ask her yourself when you drop by to correct the global scientific misunderstanding on sea level rise.
Hardly. You're the one who has never proffered any testable evidence, and you're the one who steadfastly refuses to address even the most basic corrections of science that have been put to you.
This thread now has the information content of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_noise
DBB FTW!
Bern, delighted to hear you have sceptical capacity. But tell me, why add parenthesis to the word "intelectualyl" when you invented it. I won't add the obvious remark .
Interesting to hear about your wet jetty. I know lots of professionally built jetties that go under at king tide. The fender piles always extend well beyond the deck. How about some dates, places and measurements.
"which is why I carefully review the data."
You mean like you reviewed that Fort Denison Data?
How do you get accelerated SLR from that?
DBB, you are a little confused. White noise is at least half the noise that issues from a C&W paper.
After you Drongo. You started it, and we've only been waiting for three years.
And I include recognition of your quote of me simply to indicate that it wasn't the original typo. Unlike you I try to take care in documentation.
Erm, where and when did I say that the sea level at Fort Denison was accelerating?
You're building another straw man Drongo to distract from the fact that you've been crouching on the starting block for three years.
Like it or not, global sea level is increasing, and like it or not that rise is increasing. Of course, given that you seem to be looking for bolt-holes in which to hide from your own ridiculous claim of global sea level decline, I will add that the acceleration is in the context of the first graph at the top of the page, where the full range of data is considered.
If you have more than a couple of bad holiday photos with which to disprove that inconvenient fact, you should put it forward.
Or will we have to wait another three years?
Well, this should be good....
Re Spangly's claim re retracted papers from PubMed (from Jo Nova's, of course), what the good Ms. Codling doesn't tell you, of course is that -
This is apparently sufficient to spur the innumerate to subheadings such as the following.
Perhaps Spangly would like to calculate what 43% of 2047 is as a fraction or percentage of 22.4 million? No?
So, is corruption endemic? Will no-one think of the children?! Will we all be murdered in our beds?!!!
Even if it was the annual figure I'm not exactly feeling that corruption is lurking under my bed. (But it isn't. Check the link to a real source of information below.)
Then again, I'm not paranoid.
And, gee, bio-medical research - that's the pharmaceutical industry, isn't it? Now, there's people who really do have profits - huuuuuuge profits - riding on the line.
But what's most notable is the visigoth attitude to science. We don't like what it says on climate, so it all has to go!
Knowledge; we hates it, it burns us!
In all honesty, these people actually scare me.
Also, this is old news. Why's the AWM (Army of Winged Monkeys) flying with it now, do you suppose? Hint: Chek nailed it above.
"How about some dates, places and measurements.
After you Drongo. You started it, and we’ve only been waiting for three years"
I know you're thick as a brick, Bern, but I did expect you to remember that I provided a photograph of the jetty at king tide, told you the date of that tide and the wherewithall to measure how much lower that tide was than the adjoining lawn which a similar king tide covered ~ 67 years ago during fine, non-cyclonic weather.
Now, whether you can understand it or not is beside the point. But that represents data that any normal person could understand.
Now, got anything that comes up to scratch?
Or are you just a windbag as usual?
"Erm, where and when did I say that the sea level at Fort Denison was accelerating?"
Well, what are you saying about Fort Denison?
Or like Vincie, have you gone dumb on that subject?
SD
What was the date of the similar king tide 67 years ago?
That is the date that we are asking for. Day, month and year.
Please supply it.
Joni, as I have already said more than once, they were December king tides in fine sailing and boating weather and they covered that lawn by at least an inch and threatened to run into the well which at that time in a dry summer [prior to the wet season] was the only drinking water we had left so we had to make sure the levy was intact.
If there had been a cyclone with waves breaking over the lawn, a sandy loam levy would not have kept the salt water out of the well.
And as said time and time again, spanky, that doesn't mean global sea level rise was zero.
"Data fiddling is only part of your skulduggery with the gravy meter"
Good grief, that's rich coming from a side populated by cherry pickers and assorted liars. Trust SD to rely on a few far right blogs to make his arguments for him.
And still, SD, we have to rely on your > 65 year old recollection as proof that the tides were in Dec and not the tides that were definitely affected by the TC's.
“Data fiddling is only part of your skulduggery with the gravy meter”
Prove your "data" hasn't been fiddled to keep you on your gravy train.
A while ago Spangled Drongo said:
"Data fiddling is only part of your skulduggery with the gravy meter."
Does anyone have any idea what he's on about?
So, we're still talking about the jetty that's up a river that's been subject to all sorts of work, silting, dredging, etc...?
Still haven't seen your data, Spangly - vague anecdotes don't count.
"Does anyone have any idea what he’s on about?"
He's on about how genuine records of sea level have records of what factors were incident at the time.
Apparently, unless it's him or another denier doing it, this is fiddling with the data and proof of malfeasance.
Or, in other words: bollocks.
Joni, if you are determined to believe that I wouldn't know the difference between idyllic weather and cyclonic weather then that remark is applicable but you must accept that the difference in those types of weather patterns is just as memorable as the sea levels, or even more so.
"So, we’re still talking about the jetty that’s up a river that’s been subject to all sorts of work, silting, dredging, etc…?"
Vince, you are so typical of the stupidity here.
After nearly 6 weeks and 1800 comments you still haven't got your facts straight.
For the umpteenth time, that jetty is at Cleveland Point in the middle of Moreton Bay!
You even make Bernie look bright.
The jetty once more for Vince:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Screen-Shot-2013…
And stil no date.
Joni, if I had had a date it would have been the first thing I gave you but as I said previously I witnessed these floodings occurring over a number of similar occasions up to the early '50s and all in idyllic summer weather.
I do not ever recall seeing a cyclone coinciding with a king tide at that address. I know they happened there and there was a lot of destruction as a result but I never witnessed them.
If I had, I wouldn't have forgotten them.
Except the date, probably ☺.
BTW, this is how the real world doesn't correlate with the gravy meter:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20…
All you have to do now Spanky is show where the IPCC claims CO2 is the only forcing on global temperature.
Which you can't do because they don't. Making you another victim of crank blog disinformation. I hope you don't send those frauds anything from your pension.
Hey - looks like "fraud" is back in the permissible lexicon.
"All you have to do now Spanky is show where the IPCC claims CO2 is the only forcing on global temperature.
Which you can’t do because they don’t. Making you another victim of crank blog disinformation. I hope you don’t send those frauds anything from your pension."
What are you trying to say here chek?
That the uncertainty monster is worse than we thought?
spangled drongo --- Go back to serving insects at your
http://www.agfg.com.au/guide/nsw/northern-rivers/lismore-area/nimbin/re…
I'm not "trying to say" anything Spanky. I'm telling you that CO2 isn't the only driver affecting climate. What are you trying to say? That you believed the crank version of the science and it was? Quelle surprise.
Can't answer the question, spanky?
Are you trying to say that you know you're talking shite?
Spangled Drongo
What is the "gravy meter"?
It's like a yard of ale for the wimpy, Neil.
:-)
What he's saying, Spangles, is to stop getting your (dis)information from crank blogs like Marohasy and WUWT.
In springtime, do I expect each day to be warmer than the last?
If the daily temperature increase during spring isn't linear, and a cold day occurs, do I get into a flap due to "Summer's not coming!?"
Do you understand just how vacuous that crap is that you repeat from your crank blogs?
Been invited up there DBB, but haven't been yet.
Nimbin's not really my scene but the border ranges are.
Chek, I'm relieved you're not trying to say anything because you aren't and you haven't for the last 18 pages.
"What is the “gravy meter”?"
Come off it Neil.
Thanks for clumsily and selectively evading the question Spanky. It says all that need be said.
SD: Doesn't that graph you linked to refer only to the temperature at one location in Greenland. Are you sure that the zero on the time graph means a date in the last two or three years? I'm sure that if you check you'll find it refers to a date more than 50 years ago. Things have changed a little since the mid 1950s. IIRC, the last measurement actually dated from over 90 years ago.
RS, so what you are saying is: that even though it didn't correlate for 11,000 years, because it got a bit closer in the last century, that proves it?
You better talk to chek.
Ho ho - is Spangly channeling the spirit of Don Easterbrook?
It is quite a testament to your general lack of awareness of any of the issues that you'd put forward a graph that not only ends in, what, 1855(?), it shows 'current' CO2 concentratrion as 280ppm!
Munchkin, do you even know what the current CO2 concentration is? It's not hard to find out, but it's difficult to learn if you've devoted a lifetime to carefully studied ignorance.
Thanks for the own-goal, old man! But, seriously: try to be less of a sucker
When you're Spangly and "data" consists of unverifiable things he keeps in his head, 1855 is pretty much, "now".
Lol, I just had a look at Spangly's graph of Greenland temperatures (why Greenland? Who knows?)
He seems to be arguing that Greenland temperature doesn't correlate with global CO2.
If you look at the graphic, you can see that
- between 11000 - 7000 both show a slight opposite trend
- between 7000 - 0 both show a fairly strong opposite trend in the other direction
So not only is it a stupid argument, but it appears to contradict the evidence.
Another own-goal, Spangly.
It might be 1950 - that's roundabout when nuclear atmospheric testing mucks up the isotopes.
Bill, in case you didn't get it we are talking about what went on prior to the IR.
Now Vincie, have another squiz:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20…
What was it Richard Feynman said: If it correlates it doesn't prove causation but if it DOESN'T correlate, you got buckleys.
Looks like it correlates quite nicely.
Better get a new pair of glasses, Spangly.
GISP2 ice core is from Summit, 'central' Greenland. The last d18O date from GISP2 is for 1857 CE. Some attempts to provide a graphic for GISP2 do not make this clear.
spangled drongo provided a link to a climate4you graphic. The label on the left side of that is wrong; those are the d18O temperatures (which is not the same as the temperature at Summit). Worse, the dome C CO2 is not to be trusted at scales less than millennial.
That's why you have to ignore all the sharp peaks and troughs.
I wonder if Neil remembers this.
Only 15cm SLR by 2100:
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
I know you’re thick as a brick, Bern, but I did expect you to remember that I provided a photograph of the jetty at king tide, told you the date of that tide and the wherewithall [sic] to measure how much lower that tide was than the adjoining lawn which a similar king tide covered ~ 67 years ago during fine, non-cyclonic weather.
Now, whether you can understand it or not is beside the point. But that represents data that any normal person could understand.
Now, got anything that comes up to scratch?
Or are you just a windbag as usual?
Me a "windbag"? Really Drongo, you're the one who has been making claims for three years based on nothing more than a few non-quality assured photos and a couple of fishermen's tales.
And my point seems to have been lost on you. I countered your unsubstantiated tales with some anecdotes of my own which, unsatisfactorily for you, diametrically disagree with your narrative.
But notice how you immediately sprang to the position of requiring substantiation? Now why did you do that? Would it be that you requires [...gasp...] evidence?!
By applying your logic to my observations a couple of unsubstantiated stories would prove my point. You didn't like that, did you? And you shouldn't.
But note that I don't use my own anecdotes as proof of sea level rise The tides to which I referred will have been just as profoundly influenced by confounding factors as were yours, and several isolated observations cannot be construed as any sort of evidence in the context of this subject. I don't rely on a few random tide heights with which to draw a conclusion, and neither should you or any of your blinkered mates at Marohasy's swamp.
And this brings us back to your stories. You blather on about idyllic conditions at the time of your tides, but I've seen barometric pressure drop (and increase) by 20 to 30 millibars in just an hour or two, with nary a cyclone in sight, and often with no storm clouds in sight. Your defense that it was not cyclonic at the time of your 1946 tide is irrelevant.
Some more questions:
1) Does one tide (or even several) in the forties serve as an infallible reference point?
2) Can you demonstrate that all of the tides between 1900 and 1945 were also above the January 2013 tide?
3) And what of the 1947 to 1980+ tides? Were they also all above the 2013 tide?
4) If not, why were they not?
5) If there were tides prior to the 1980s (or whenever) that were lower than the January 2013 one at your blessed river wall lighthouse, does this not by your own logic prove that in fact sea level must be rising?
Please number your answers, and please use references to data and primary literature as appropriate to construct a scientifically-defensible response.
Me a "windbag"? Really Drongo, you're the one who has been making claims for three years based on nothing more than a few non-quality assured photos and a couple of fishermen's tales.
And my point seems to have been lost on you. I countered your unsubstantiated tales with some anecdotes of my own which, unsatisfactorily for you, diametrically disagree with your narrative.
But notice how you immediately sprang to the position of requiring substantiation? Now why did you do that? Would it be that you requires [...gasp...] evidence?!
By applying your logic to my observations a couple of unsubstantiated stories would prove my point. You didn't like that, did you? And you shouldn't.
But note that I don't use my own anecdotes as proof of sea level rise The tides to which I referred will have been just as profoundly influenced by confounding factors as were yours, and several isolated observations cannot be construed as any sort of evidence in the context of this subject. I don't rely on a few random tide heights with which to draw a conclusion, and neither should you or any of your blinkered mates at Marohasy's swamp.
And this brings us back to your stories. You blather on about idyllic conditions at the time of your tides, but I've seen barometric pressure drop (and increase) by 20 to 30 millibars in just an hour or two, with nary a cyclone in sight, and often with no storm clouds in sight. Your defense that it was not cyclonic at the time of your 1946 tide is irrelevant.
Some more questions:
1) Does one tide (or even several) in the forties serve as an infallible reference point?
2) Can you demonstrate that all of the tides between 1900 and 1945 were also above the January 2013 tide?
3) And what of the 1947 to 1980+ tides? Were they also all above the 2013 tide?
4) If not, why were they not?
5) If there were tides prior to the 1980s (or whenever) that were lower than the January 2013 one at your blessed river wall lighthouse, does this not by your own logic prove that in fact sea level must be rising?
Please number your answers, and please use references to data and primary literature as appropriate to construct a scientifically-defensible response.
Fuck it.
I hate National Geographic.
Me a "windbag"? Really Drongo, you're the one who has been making claims for three years based on nothing more than a few non-quality assured photos and a couple of fishermen's tales.
And my point seems to have been lost on you. I countered your unsubstantiated tales with some anecdotes of my own which, unsatisfactorily for you, diametrically disagree with your narrative.
But notice how you immediately sprang to the position of requiring substantiation? Now why did you do that? Would it be that you requires [...gasp...] evidence?!
By applying your logic to my observations a couple of unsubstantiated stories would prove my point. You didn't like that, did you? And you shouldn't.
But note that I don't use my own anecdotes as proof of sea level rise The tides to which I referred will have been just as profoundly influenced by confounding factors as were yours, and several isolated observations cannot be construed as any sort of evidence in the context of this subject. I don't rely on a few random tide heights with which to draw a conclusion, and neither should you or any of your blinkered mates at Marohasy's swamp.
And this brings us back to your stories. You blather on about idyllic conditions at the time of your tides, but I've seen barometric pressure drop (and increase) by 20 to 30 millibars in just an hour or two, with nary a cyclone in sight, and often with no storm clouds in sight. Your defense that it was not cyclonic at the time of your 1946 tide is irrelevant.
Some more questions:
1) Does one tide (or even several) in the forties serve as an infallible reference point?
2) Can you demonstrate that all of the tides between 1900 and 1945 were also above the January 2013 tide?
3) And what of the 1947 to 1980+ tides? Were they also all above the 2013 tide?
4) If not, why were they not?
5) If there were tides prior to the 1980s (or whenever) that were lower than the January 2013 one at your blessed river wall lighthouse, does this not by your own logic prove that in fact sea level must be rising?
Please number your answers, and please use references to data and primary literature as appropriate to construct a scientifically-defensible response.
What was I saying about Fort Denison? Have I gone "dumb on the subject"? Drongo, read back carefully through this thread. Fort Denison is not something that I've engaged with other than to point out that you were verballing me with your straw man about acceleration of sea level rise there.
It's fascinating to see how free and easy you are with accusing others of verballing you (when in fact that is not the case) and yet you are happy to attribute to others comments which they have not made in any context, by any stretch of the imagination.
Not only are you an ideologically blinkered and scientifically ignorant old fart, you're a hypocritical grub to boot.
Oh, and do let us know when you've been to see Jean Palutikof at the the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility that is literally just around the corner from you. Have you booked an appointment yet? I want to hear from you what she says in response to your revelation that she and her colleagues in the IPCC scientific teams are profoundly wrong, and I will then be sure to contact her myself to see just how accurately you report your pronouncement to her that she doesn't understand sea level rise as well as you.
Or are you too scared to go and put it to a real scientist?
This is for bill. He would like to know how human emissions correlate with temperature. Not so good, bill:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/tbrown_figure3.png
Trustworthy paleo-CO2:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
Do not believe a thing found on WUWT.
It is a 'turtles all the way down' site.
"but I’ve seen barometric pressure drop (and increase) by 20 to 30 millibars in just an hour or two, with nary a cyclone in sight"
You surprise me Bern. Very observant of you. Now do you have any instance of it happening in any of the Decembers between 1946 and the early 1950s?
And as I said to Joni, I didn't witness any of the cyclones that coincided with king tides at Cleveland Point in those years even though they occurred and caused considerable damage by generating even higher SLs.
So we'll agree to let Fort Denison speak for itself then?
The rest of your post is just waffle and waving.
"Do not believe a thing found on WUWT.
It is a ‘turtles all the way down’ site."
I think your statement comes under the heading of "Nitpicking, Non-attention-paying Nincompoop".
DBB my graph was for ACO2, yours was for paleo CO2.
But tell me DBB, if I superimposed the CET or the AGT over your graph, would it correlate any better?
SD: Your last link was to a graph of the so-called Central England Temperature record. Are you aware that some of the measurements were taken indoors and others came from the Netherlands? It is not something I would want to put much faith in.
"It is not something I would want to put much faith in"
Richard, it ties in very well with all the old European records as well as the new AGT and is the oldest of all.
Where do you think it is wrong?
And by how much?
The Law Dome CO2 matches the Keeling curve in the period of overlap to within 0.25% except right at the end of the Law Dome data where the agreement is within 0.5%.
Stated more briefly, the two records agree.
CET says something about the temperatures in, well, central England. That is hardly the northern hemisphere much less the globe.
In other words, you yourself do not have a clue what the barometric conditions were in south-east Queensland 67 years ago. Why am I not surprised...
So? An absence of cyclones at the moment of a king tide does not mean that there were not barometric conditions conducive of unusual heights. Are you really this clueless about basic meteorology?
Oh, and I will recall for the audience's edification that you made a lot of noise before about how flooding during one of your riverine 'king' tides did not affect the height achieved, but that the cyclone and the surge at the time did:
This is the wall and the instance that you were trying to use to claim that sea level was decreasing, and now you claim that it was not affected by a cyclone.
Which is it Drongo?
Either you were wrong then about the conditions at the time of your vaunted tide, or you are wrong now.
And why did you concede then that meteorological and oceanographic conditions affect tides, but you staunchly avoid such an admission now?
What's is saying, Drongo? And before you answer, do you know where Fort Denison is located?
What, you mean the bit where I press you on going to visit a real scientist and making your case to her that there have been profound problems with the world's oceanographers and with their analyses and interpretations of data? You mean the bit where I pres you to put your amazing evidence to the test so that the record might be corrected?
Oh, that bit...
Keep telling yourself that it's "waffle and waving" Drongo. One day you might even manage to convince yourself of it, but it will not change the fact that the only waffle and waving here is that in which you have engaged for three years.
Three years Drongo. In those three years you have been unable to:
1) present any testable evidence
2) accept that your tide height is affected by numerous significant confounding factors
3) understand that whatever is happening in your region is not necessarily reflective of the planet as a whole.
It's people like you that probably inspired Stanley R. Greenberg in his adaptation of Harry Harrison's Make Room! Make Room!. What an unpalatable thought...
Spangled Drongo
There is a much better plot of T vs CO2 here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Much better than the cherry pick you showed! And there's some actual science on this site - unlike the ones you go to!
And you still haven't told us what the "gravy meter" is. Is this another of your inventions (like the Billard Table Principle) that you don't even understand yourself?
Spangled Drongo
The abstract of that article in JCR starts: "Without sea-level acceleration,...".
But there IS sealevel acceleration as we all know. So what is your point? Suddenly you seem to like paleo data, EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE IT YOURSELF. The paleo data, is very clear on the acceleration in sea-level rise, and is consistent with estimates from tide gauge data, as shown at the top of this post.
Another own goal!
OMGFG, that is the most retarded thing I have seen on this thread yet.
There is no way you could be even slightly sceptical and not see that graphic for the complete and utter crap it is.
Where do you start on such abject nonsense....Spangly, you *do* realise that CO2 uptake by various sinks responds to emissions?
You *really* need to stop getting your (dis)information from that crank blog run by Anthony Watts called WUWT. It is incompetent, ignorant drivel.
Thanks Tim.
Gee, SD, you're really out for 'sucker of the Year' today, aren't you?
Where did that ridiculous red line 'climate model prediction' come from? What's it a prediction of, and what/where for, pet? What, the IPCC has 'predicted' that temps in 2113 in Central England will have reached 17C, eh? You think?
But look what I just found -
That's above the 1960-1991 baseline, incidentally. Which doesn't appear to be anywhere near 14C, does it, petal?
So; what Vince said + replot the chart with the scale on the left going from 7-13C (and that's being very generous to you) and then see how smart you look.
Don't forget, pet, the temp curve is called a 'curve' because it's bendy - in this case, up: it'll increase most in the latter half of the Century.
This ludicrously disparate dual-scale thing is a trick that works on the kind of notably dense little munchkins who think Lord Monckton is both a scientist and a genius.
Is this in current use in Denier land? It's so palpably daft it's a gift...
Meanwhile bill, back in the real world:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9814618/Its-…
What would you know about the real world, spankers?
Oh, dear. Winter is STILL suprising to you?
Where are the 6ft snowdrifts like we used to have?
http://www.reading.ac.uk/merl/research/merl_fellowships_martin.aspx
I guess even the extreme cold days are now much warmer than the extreme cold days we used to have.
That's Global Warming for you.
Correction for Bernie:
Waffle, FROTHING and waving.
Have a bex and a good lie down, Bern.
Well, now you understand what your blatherings sound like to the sane population, donkey.
But you're forgetting Wowsie, this is what we're supposed to have:
"However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."
Yup.
We know.
Your point?
Bern, did you read what Wowsie just said about you?
spanky, did you read what I wrote?
"Yup.
We know.
Your point?"
You know when he said that, Wowsie?
THIRTEEN years ago.
Maybe it's possible you know SHIT?
"You know when he said that, Wowsie?
THIRTEEN years ago."
Yup, I know.
So, what's your point?
Spanking Donkey, you've quoted without attribution someone claiming what Dr Vines said.
But you don't know why you did that.
SD:
I don't know. That is why I wouldn't put much trust in it.
Tell me: why did that graph you linked to show CO2 emissions rather than concentration? Isn't it the concentration that is important? Why was a local temperature record used as a proxy for global temperature when better ones are available? Why were the temperature data not expanded to fill the entire graph vertically? Perhaps the answer to all three is the same - it might have been possible to show a relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature.
"Where do you think it [the CET] is wrong?"
Because Central England isn't even all of England, never mind the globe.
You DO know that the map with "You are here" on it isn't actually the thing being mapped, right, spankies?
"Why was a local temperature record used as a proxy for global temperature when better ones are available?"
For two very obvious reasons, RS.
1/ CET is the longest record and much more reliable than other proxies.
2/ It agrees with all the other European records that started later.
Is that so hard to understand?
How so?
"CET is the longest record and much more reliable than other proxies.
How so?"
Would you rather believe the Hokey Stick?
Back to being a white noise generator, I see.
What I tend to find Spanky is that cranks who wibble on about the CET know nothing about it.
And as you're oh-so impressed by the "quality", once again: how so?
I have been trying to contact as many of the old residents as possible who have known the area all their lives to give me their thoughts and recollections of cyclonic events at Cleveland Point seeing as how I have never witnessed a cyclonic event there that coincided with a king tide.
It's still work-in-progress but one man who has a local park named after him, still carries out community assistance work and at 94 is sharp as a tack, tells me that in 1936 the whole of Cleveland Point was swept by seas and the road was so far under, it was inaccessible. This would possibly put SLs a meter higher than the levels I witnessed in mild weather between 1946 and the early 1950s.
He worked in his father's real estate business which encompassed 3 generations and they used not to talk about things like that as it was very bad for business.
But that supports convincingly that what I witnessed was a real situation and that current SLs are not only NOT accelerating, not rising, but actually going down.
They still won't know what the global mean sea level was, spanky.
DBB, chek, Wow, RS et al, please show how thermometers are not more reliable than tree rings etc.
Is your problem maybe that you can't "hide the decline" with thermometers?
Would you rather not answer the question?
"1/ CET is the longest record and much more reliable than other proxies."
It still isn't even the entire UK, never mind the entire world.
And please prove that it is more reliable.
"2/ It agrees with all the other European records that started later."
It doesn't, else why would you use that rather than the entire data set of weather records.
"please show how thermometers are not more reliable than tree rings etc."
Please show us that the CET is more reliable than tree rings for trees over the entire globe.
I just checked Joni's link for 1936 cyclones in Moreton Bay.
It mentions Cleveland Point:
http://www.australiasevereweather.com/cyclones/impacts-eastcoast.pdf
And your point is..?
Hell, since Cleveland Point isn't in the CET dataset, why the hell are you bothering looking there? Use the CET tide gauge information.
It's got a much longer record than Australia.
I think I'm going to use the term 'idiot magnet' to describe charts such as that one from Watts' that Spanky posted earlier.
I notice he just dropped it, wisely, but we had barely scratched the surface of the Stupid embodied in that particular graph...
Are you out of your fracking mind?
Flooding caused by cyclonic surging combined with king tides in the first half of the 20th century proves that sea level is decreasing now?!
Idiot.
You still haven't controlled for multiple and simultaneously-acting confounders. Why do you refuse to do this? Do you truly not understand how utterly at odds with rational scientific understanding is your thinking?
You haven't explained why sea level is decreasing. Did someone pull the plug?
What physical mechanism is causing the decrease?
You claim a 14 inch drop in sea level in 67 years - to where has the one hundred and twenty-eight thousand three hundred and seventy-two cubic kilometres (128 372 km^3) of seawater represented by this decrease disappeared?
Just to help you get a grasp of the disappeared seawater, that’s one hundred and thirty one trillion five hundred and eighty-one billion metric tons (1.31581 x 10^14 tons) of missing ocean. Or, if you want it in SI units, that’s one hundred and thirty one quadrillion five hundred and eighty-one trillion kilograms (1.31581 x 10^17 kg) of missing ocean…
Where did it go?
And what physical phenomenon or phenomena moved it there?
Seas 1.5 meters higher 77 years ago.
OO, LOOK! What's that over there?
"OO, LOOK! What’s that over there?"
The remains of your brainstem, desperately trying to avoid destruction, spanky.
Really, is this what you are claiming?
If not, what is your actual height versus time figure?
I have to admit you had us suckered for three years Drongo. We all thought that you were actually serious, but you now reveal to all that you are in fact a poe.
But boy, you suckered the knuckle-draggers at Marohasy's swamp and at Codling's cesspit even more - they actually believed your tripe! Ol' Jen and Jo must be so embarrassed now, realising that they were played for the numpties that they are.
SCENE: Spanky's desk
[Spanky is reading his computer screen. Cut to screen text:
Screen POV shot of Spanky's face. His brows crease momentarily in the distress of concentration. We can see his lips move as he runs over the sentence again.
His eyes glaze over briefly, and then he relaxes.
He begins to type ] :
"Flooding caused by cyclonic surging combined with king tides in the first half of the 20th century proves that sea level is decreasing now?!"
Instead of frothing and ranting, bern have you checked the highest flood surge ever recorded in Moreton Bay?
When you do that you will see that it convincingly supports that what I witnessed was normal SL at the time.
Which also supports the fact that not only is SLR NOT accelerating, SLs NOT rising, but actually falling. QED.
"to where has the one hundred and twenty-eight thousand three hundred and seventy-two cubic kilometres (128 372 km^3) of seawater represented by this decrease disappeared?"
Got nooo idea, hey bern?
I'm sure you're fertile imagination can come up with something.
Bern thinks that because he refuses to think about it, it didn't happen.
What exquisite denial.
So the CET is reliable even though some of the measurements were taken indoors, in unheated greenhouses?
Is Europe the entire globe? Are its temperatures necessarily representative of the whole globe?
At least some of the thermometers were badly sited, far worse than the ones complained about at WUWT. Not only were some indoors but some were in a different country. When do you think adequate screening was invented? When do you think it was routinely used for the data incorporated into the CET?
In the USA the researchers find that the earliest that instrumental records (liquid in glass thermometers) were not sufficiently used across the face of the globe until 1880 CE. The English are willing to push back to 1850 CE.
Recently BEST has produced a land-only global temperature product starting in about 1750 CE.
For older than that, some forms of proxies have to be used. Here is a recent paper:
The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability
B. Christiansen and F. C. Ljungqvist
Clim. Past, 8, 765–786, 2012
www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/
doi:10.5194/cp-8-765-2012
That suggests that SLR might be accelerating recently. Indeed, we have
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
which brings us full circle...
So Spangles is still convinced that his imaginary data is rock-solid proof that all the fraudulent scientists who measure stuff carefully are wrong.
There is no actual cure for Dunning-Kruger, is there?
What does the highest flood surge ever recorded in Moreton Bay have to do with anything?
The discussion is about the increase in mean global sea level, and not about a conjunction of multiple and simultaneously-acting confounders that cause a particular storm surge record. It seems to escape your understanding that the rate of sea level rise per century can be overwhelmed by storm surge alone, leave aside any of the other factors that superimpose.
I can keep on repeating these facts Drongo, and you can keep on ignoring them. It won't change the fact that I am correct and you are not, but it will demonstrate that you are constitutionally incapable of assimilating basic science.
If it was "normal at the time" then you and your contemporaries were simply stupid to build structures that would be so "normally" flooded.
Are you that stupid Drongo?
Obviously you have no idea to where all that seawater is disappearing, or else you would have explained how your claim holds up. You didn't explain where the water has gone, so I conclude that your claim cannot withstand rational consideration.
Drongo, I don't subscribe to your claim that sea level has decreased by somewhere between 36 cm to 1.5 m, so I don't need to imagine what contravention of science might be operating.
Your conclusion is logically fallacious.
Oh, but I am thinking about it. This is why I know that your numbers do not square with the empirical evidence, or with the basic laws of physics. This is why I am asking you many questions in order to reconcile your numbers with the real world.
I can reflect your statement though, and note that because you persist in refusing to answer any of the hundreds of question which I have put to you, you seem to think that those same questions were therefore not asked, and that the scientific underpinnings on which those questions are based don't then render your claims laughable.
What does the highest flood surge ever recorded in Moreton Bay have to do with anything?
The discussion is about the increase in mean global sea level, and not about a conjunction of multiple and simultaneously-acting confounders that cause a particular storm surge record. It seems to escape your understanding that the rate of sea level rise per century can be overwhelmed by storm surge alone, leave aside any of the other factors that superimpose.
I can keep on repeating these facts Drongo, and you can keep on ignoring them. It won't change the fact that I am correct and you are not, but it will demonstrate that you are constitutionally incapable of assimilating basic science.
If it was "normal at the time" then you and your contemporaries were simply stupid to build structures that would be so "normally" flooded.
Are you that stupid Drongo?
Obviously you have no idea to where all that seawater is disappearing, or else you would have explained how your claim holds up. You didn't explain where the water has gone, so I conclude that your claim cannot withstand rational consideration.
Drongo, I don't subscribe to your claim that sea level has decreased by somewhere between 36 cm to 1.5 m, so I don't need to imagine what contravention of science might be operating.
Your conclusion is logically fallacious.
Oh, but I am thinking about it. This is why I know that your numbers do not square with the empirical evidence, or with the basic laws of physics. This is why I am asking you many questions in order to reconcile your numbers with the real world.
I can reflect your statement though, and note that because you persist in refusing to answer any of the hundreds of question which I have put to you, you seem to think that those same questions were therefore not asked, and that the scientific underpinnings on which those questions are based don't then render your claims laughable.
What exquisite cognitive scotoma, and what exquisite reflection, and what exquisite poe-ing.
Drongo, if you believe what you say you are mentally diseased. Please tell your children and grandchildren to read these threads, so that they might see:
1) the serious state of your mental decrepitude, and
2) the profound damage that you seek to wring on the lives of their children and grandchildren.
"When you do that you will see that it convincingly supports that what I witnessed was normal SL at the time.
If it was “normal at the time” then you and your contemporaries were simply stupid to build structures that would be so “normally” flooded"
Bern, you're not only foolish but getting apoplectic as well. Cleveland Point is one of the oldest developments in Moreton Bay and was intended as the Port of Brisbane.
When it was first developed the flooding most likely didn't happen.
A short period of flooding for about an hour, twice a year, for high set houses is not a problem when weighed against the magical benefits of the position but the simple fact is that it is not happening now.
Now hurry up and take your meds.
Ah, so now you're documenting sea level rise between the 1800s and the early 20th century.
I think that's called an own-goal Drongo.
Tell us - if sea level was increasing then (and science says that it was, at a much lower rate than is seen today), why has it reversed?
This must be a peculiarity of the Moreton bay area then, because I don't know any places in other parts of Australia that build to that poor standard - and Drongo, I've lived a stone's throw from salt water for most of my life, in several states.
What about the rest of the Australians here? Do your local shore-dwellers have wet carpet twice a year from meteorologically-benign king tides?
Ah, still unable to put forward a considered, evidenced, and references argument I see.
You can ad hom me as much as you feel the need to. It doesn't change the objective fact that by the vehicle of your own demonstrable inability to address the science of the subject, you are an idiot, and that my observation of this is not ad hominem.
And Drongo, I haven't forgotten that you haven't answered the questions here, let alone the hundreds of others that you've avoided for three years.
You really are too chicken-shit scared to address the matter of the data, aren't you?
"Tell us – if sea level was increasing then (and science says that it was, at a much lower rate than is seen today), why has it reversed?"
I wouldn't dream of telling a genius like you WHY anything.
But may I offer a suggestion? Check the temperature variations for the period.
And with your ad hom rationale, you're a bit like Gillard calling Abbott a misogynist and claiming she doesn't play the sexist card.
"I don’t know any places in other parts of Australia that build to that poor standard – and Drongo, I’ve lived a stone’s throw from salt water for most of my life, in several states".
Bern, if you weren't such a fool and a hypocrite you would be a joke. Not only does this happen in many parts of this country but being the decendant of prolific polder preservers, you should be aware that your ancestors have had a much bigger problem for half a millenia.
Bern, when you are too stupid to understand that perfect summer weather around Moreton Bay doesn't involve low barometric pressures supported by the fact that there have been no cyclones in December in the years I quoted [if at all] I am forced to ignore your distractions, obscurantism and obfuscation, as I said previously.
That, coupled with the fact that it is commonly known and verifiable that cyclonic weather has been a meter higher than my obs, validates my claim.
East coast TGs are also consistent with my claim.
You've got nothing to offer but the gravy meter.
You are shot, bern.
"I wouldn’t dream of telling a genius like you WHY anything."
We know.
Spankers, you still seem to think the entire world is made up of one location you've found in the world that you don't live anywhere near but has a record of sea level being higher 67 years ago.
You never lived there.
You're making the whole thing up.
And THAT is why you'll never tell us WHY anything.
Because you don't know why.
"I’m sure you’re fertile imagination can come up with something."
Taking all evidence into consideration, the conclusion is: you're a moron, spankers.
"Instead of frothing and ranting, bern have you checked the highest flood surge ever recorded in Moreton Bay?"
Your point being..?
And wowsie's about half as bright as bern.
Nothing to say, only to spray.
And not even Spakers here knows what he's talking about.
Nothing to say, only to spray.
What, you mean global warming melting ice and expanding water, thereby raising sea level...?
Really?
In that case you should be able to point to those many parts of the country where infrastructure experiences king tide flooding twice per year.
You mean you are forced to ignore my relevant questions and pertinent points because you are unable to answer them.
1) You haven't demonstrated that your king tide events occurred during "perfect summer weather".
2) As has been noted previously, king tides are principly a January phenomenon.
Answer the questions, Drongo. heck, if I am so wrong and obscurist, you should be able to devastate me with a detailed and evidenced rebuttal to all of my points. Instead, you run away like a girl running from a spider.
Just how does a cyclonic surge height validate your claim that an unevidenced historic king tide height, confounded by multiple other parameters, disproves global sea level rise?
Remember, you have not yet answered my question about any king tide heights in the early 20th century that were below those of the 21st century. By your logic, even a single king tide back then that was lower than any now 'proves' sea level rise. Can your geriatric brains trust with the photographic memory and the encyclopædic logbooks demonstrate that all king tides back then flooded the lighthouse lawn, and was your river wall mark similarly always topped in its infant years?
Really? Pictures please.
Seas 1.5 meters higher 77 years ago.
Bang on, Spangles - that's why Venice was encased in a glass dome in 1936, and was only accessible by submarine until 1972. My Grandad told me and he went there - I've seen his photos of Mount Vesuvius to prove it.
And there used to be signs on the Victoria Embayment in London requiring people to raise their centreboards if they were sailing on to Buckingham Beach House. Then SL dropped and they took down the signs and renamed it Victorian Embankment.
Seriously, who makes this shit up? Anyone who is interested might want to check Ozcoasts maps' to what 1.1 metres SLR would look like in Spankies area, amongst others. Whatever their feeding them at the retirement home, I want some!
So bern and RS have now got to the point of denying simple addition and subtraction.
Ideology is a wonderful thing.
Too true Spanky.
Oh, and your precious 'obs' aren't.
They're memories you've recorded nowhere (except in the past three years you've been a Codlingwhore, and prone to human error and wish fulfilments, even more so in your case.
How do you arrive at that conclusion? I present numbers, you don't, I do the arithmetic that any primary school child can do, that you seem to ignore as if your life depended on it.
Where's the water going Drongo, and what physical process is putting it there?
Numbers please, and show your working. References please, and show your links.
Yes, we know that you cleave unto your ideology like a babe suckling at her mother's teat, but in the real world we use science.
In three years you haven't presented anything that even remotely resembles any of the components of scientific methodology.
Bernard poses: "What about the rest of the Australians here? Do your local shore-dwellers have wet carpet twice a year from meteorologically-benign king tides?"
Yes indeed, and that's why I originally found sympathy for SD's arguments re his local measurements. When I was a boy the large January tides frequently overtopped the esplanade at Hervey Bay in Queensland and could result in minor local flooding of homes and businesses.
I was not aware of that happening more recently, though it must be said I no longer live there. I believe that the same tides in the past couple of years have not overtopped the esplanade however some steps have been taken in intervening years to prevent this.
http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/did-you-get-photo-king-tide…
Lucky science isn't based on a random cranky pensioners' vague memories, then, eh?
And what where the meteorological conditions at the time? Can you provide the years that this occurred, so that we can check the weather and oceanographic records?
I can hardly believe that this thread sputters on and on...
Bernie, I have supplied you with all the details you need to work out for yourself what has been happening at Cleveland Point over the last nearly 80 years supported by a list of cyclones and tide surge heights over that period and a photograph of the last HAT there.
It is clear to a normal person that king tides have not only NOT risen in recent years in Moreton Bay but have actually fallen.
Don't keep asking for the same data when, like Wow and the other Ds here, you only wish to deny them.
The only thing left for you now is to take that list of cyclones with you down to CP at the next HAT and talk to the old locals.
It is a waste of time and effort trying to explain any more.
Actually, I've noticed that the ocean is contracting, too, because when I were a lad taking trips with my old grandfather down to Semaphore you used to walk straight off the edge of the foreshore reserve seawall onto the beach, and then it was just a short hop (perhaps over a rather disturbing mass of defunct seagrass if there'd recently been a storm) into St. Vincent's Gulf.
I live in Semaphore now, and there is about 100m of well-vegetated sand-dune beyond the foreshore reserve before you can even reach the beach!
The global ocean must be contracting; it's the only reasonable explanation.
Come to think of it, my grandfather's house in West Croydon has shrunk, too. It was much bigger when I was 7, as was the block it was sited on. So much for the so-called 'expanding universe', eh, Science?
It's a good thing we have such a store of pedagogic anecdotes to keep Real Science alive, eh ;-)...
Yes, sputters on is right DBB.
Bernard I am not making any claims about the tides at all, and unlike SD have no measurements or anything to go back to. It was just an observation in respect to your question. For all I know the tides may have coincided with storm surges or unusual swells. However the point is that there are places in Australia where people have built in locations that can be affected by king tides.
But that said, I am now curious so might try to dig up some relevant info about those tides. I was just talking to my 84 year old dad and he agrees that it was not unusual for the big tides to flood onto the esplanade there.
As to whether it is possible to make any comparisons, well... Things have changed and in any case, given that SLR around that area has been less than the global average I doubt that it'd be noticeable at the local level.
The Role of Surface and Subsurface Processes in Keeping Pace with Sea Level Rise in Intertidal Wetlands of Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia
Lovelock, Catherine; Bennion, Vicki; Grinham, Alistair; Cahoon, Donald
Ecosystems, Volume 14, Number 5, August 2011 , pp. 745-757(13)
From the abstract "... Here, we tested whether the soil surface elevation of mangroves and salt marshes in Moreton Bay is keeping up with local rates of sea level rise (2.358 mm/y) ..."
Click on QLD and then Brisbane bar:
http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/tides/monthly/
Who? What? When? Explain yourself.
Eh? You make the claim, you should do the working and show the path of your thinking.
Science isn't a flat pack where you tell the end-user to assemble it themselves. Heck, you're not even selling a flat-pack - your product is nothing more than a Maurits Escher concept of science that looks interesting at first glance, but once assessed is patently apparent for the illusion that it is.
Never once have you ever put together a cogent and coherent argument based on data and empirical evidence. Not once.
And no, a couple of holiday photos and some front-veranda stories don't qualify.
And you've only supplied the 1946 date - you still haven't explained which other dates have flooding tides that demonstrate that sea level is now decreasing, nor have you addressed* the implication of any early 20th century king tide height being lower than this month's. You have by no stretch of any imagination less fevered than your own supplied anything resembling a testable body of data.
*You're really scared of that last one aren't you Drongo - your own logic would render your claim refuted if you did answer.
Why is it clear? Have you accounted for all of the relevant parameters I listed here? Have you</i??! Can you link to any such effort, including data logs and analyses, and other relevant references?
Can you?
Eh? You make the claim, you should do the working and show the path of your thinking.
Science isn't a flat pack where you tell the end-user to assemble it themselves. Heck, you're not even selling a flat-pack - your product is nothing more than a Maurits Escher concept of science that looks interesting at first glance, but once assessed is patently apparent for the illusion that it is.
Never once have you ever put together a cogent and coherent argument based on data and empirical evidence. Not once.
And no, a couple of holiday photos and some front-veranda stories don't qualify.
And you've only supplied the 1946 date - you still haven't explained which other dates have flooding tides that demonstrate that sea level is now decreasing, nor have you addressed* the implication of any early 20th century king tide height being lower than this month's. You have by no stretch of any imagination less fevered than your own supplied anything resembling a testable body of data.
*You're really scared of that last one aren't you Drongo - your own logic would render your claim refuted if you did answer.
Why is it clear? Have you accounted for all of the relevant parameters I listed here? Have you?! Can you link to any such effort, including data logs and analyses, and other relevant references?
Can you?
Hark to the painfully clever,
They sing their song twice over
So that they may recapture
That first, fine, careless rapture.
Or double denial, as the case may be.
DBB, what is the point you are making with those incomplete tide gauges?
SLR acceleration?
So you agree that incomplete tide gauges are not able to show any sea level rise?
Why then do you insist on using one to claim there is no SLR?
I'm a bit confusled by those tide gauge data DBB. They appear not to show any noticeable SLR in the cases I looked at (Mackay, Gladstone, Brisbane, Gold Coast).
Given the data cover incomplete series or shortish periods they may not be THAT useful, but they do at least show no real trend one way or the other over the past 20-30 years.
So... at least for the Queensland coast, where is the acceleration? In fact, where is anything?
How did you calculate the trend, Bolt?
Graham Lloyd's written another piece on sea level rise, wherein he - as usual - devotes large amounts of space to fringe speculations rather than reporting the results of mainstream research.
http://tinyurl.com/anrtxf3
"Rising uncertainty about sea level increases"
Includes this gem:
I like it - scientists don't take calls from The Australian anymore.
Looks like they are learning.
Lloyd is forced to copy and paste chunks of text from Realclimate seeing as no scientist will talk to him.
Uh, except for the scientists out on the fringe who want some attention - Lloyd's obviously not learning anything.
I didn't VW, I just eyeballed them. Though it's hard to tell from the scale - in some cases if you take the start and end of the series you could argue for some slight change upwards. I looked at a few others and got similar results.
Of course, given that the graph at the head of this post suggests something like 200mm over 100-150 years, the effects aren't going to be especially clear on those plots. Most of those show MSL for each gauge as swinging over a range greater than 200mm anyway.
So... what have we learned after umpteen pages? Dunno about you, but this is what I got.
1. MSL in SE Qld has not changed substantially in the past 100 years. In any case, a rise of maybe 150mm or so for 100 years is unlikely to be noticed at the local level given the tidal fluctuations.
2. SD's benchmarks probably do show that king tides have not increased noticeably in the past 50 or so years for the location in question, but given we do not know enough about the various local conditions it's not possible to draw any conclusions from that. Other than to say that so far at least, SLR on the SE Qld coast has had little noticeable impact.
3. The ocean is largely 'level', but it varies by up to 1-2 metres from the geoid. That is very smooth at large scales, but SLR of .2 of a metre over 100 years is easily contained within that variation. Thus, changes at any particular tide gauge don't tell us anything much about changes at a gauge elsewhere.
4. The case for 'acceleration' in recent decades is not clearly shown for me.
Lovelock et al. claim Moreton Bay SLR is 2.358 mm/y. In my following post I linked to some data regarding tide gauges. You decide.
I did those two comments to provide some actual data as opposed to mere anecdotes.
Indeed DBB. But while Lovelock et al may claim it, we don't know how they derived that value (or put another way, I've not read their paper so if there is any actual data rather than a simple statement I am not aware of it).
Looking at the actual data you have provided, I can't see anything happening there. MSL varies around 300-400mm over the period of the record, but not in an inexorable rising fashion. For example, the first few months of 1966 show an MSL of around 1300, while the same period in 2011 shows about the same. The first few months of 1957 - a short series - shows around 1100mm. So, there *could* conceiveably be a difference of 200mm but given that the short 1957 series is notably lower than everything else, there may be other factors at play.
What is clear is that for the period of the most complete data - 1966 to the present - there is remarkable stability.
Interestingly, if Lovelock's numbers are derived over a longer period, eg 1880 to the present, and the latest decades show a largely stable MSL, then what we see is what I originally suggested from the original graph for this post.
That is, SLR 'accelerated' in the early part of the record, and not so much recently. All of which certainly does little to support notions of runaway SLR and tipping points, nicht wahr?
Bolt:
What a fantastical waste of time you are.
Even though you can read and write, you are basically as dippy as Chameleon.
Well, we already know that your head is an inaccurate repository for knowledge. You will need to actually calculate it, rather than just guess.
You CAN calculate a trend, can't you?
From Lovelock et al.: "The long-term rate
of sea level rise (from 1984 and calculated as the
arithmetic mean of all values in the record) was
1.982 mm y-1 (Figure 2A), whereas the rate of rise
since 2000 was 2.358 mm y-1 (Figure 2B), which
is similar to the global average sea level rise
(Church and others 2001)."
Church JA, Gregory JM, Huybrechts P, Kuhn M, Lambeck K,
Nhuan MT, Qin D, Woodworth PL. 2001. Changes in sea
level. In: Houghton JT et al., Eds. Climate Change 2001: The
Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Third
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 639–94.
Gawd you're slow Blot. As is Drongo.
I and others have linked a number of times to maps that show that sea level in the Brisbane area is only slightly increasing - I can't be shagged trying to find the previous posts so look carefully at figure 2 here. You'll see that mean sea level near Brisbane increased by about 1 mm per year.
Drongo's sites do not show anything about trends in king tides because there is no assurance of quality at all, especially with respect to accounting for confounding factors, and because there is no documented data.
Further, even if Drongo had documented king tide height in a quality-assured manner, these points alone would not confirm or refute sea level rise.
Had Drongo also recorded over the last 70 years all of the confounding phenomena that affect sea level, and had he performed an appropriate analysis of the data such that the confounders were properly accounted for, then all he might have been able to do would be to comment on the relationship between king tide level and local sea level - he cannot infer anything about global sea level without further data.
What Drongo's stories certainly do not indicate is that sea level has decreased by between 36 cm to 1.5 metres, as he seems to think it does. Drongo has demonstrated though that he is supremely resistant to consideration of those confounding factors that even you acknowledge are insufficiently documented... confounders that are in the short term orders of magnitude greater than the sea level rise caused by global warming.
It won't be if you persist in refusing to consider the global data record.
But it's like leading a horse to water...
DBB, what is Lovelocks personally observed evidence for any of his assumptions, conjections and prognostications for Moreton Bay?
If SLR was anything near Lovelock's claim, my photo would have shown that HAT at least 6 inches [15cm] over that jetty decking and lawn. IOW 50cms higher.
Interesting with you Ds, after heated denial of my obs for nearly 2000 comments, you not only can't produce any of your own obs but you can't produce any scientific obs to support your argument.
Only your gravy meter.
Time you packed it in.
Priceless, petal.
Having strong opinions regarding things you haven't read is a bit of a theme here at the moment.
Berdie num nums, one thing you conveniently forget:
It is not just my 30-odd personal observations over periods ranging from 35 to 70 years that agree on no SLR in the Moreton Bay region.
But there is this coincidence that EVERYONE I have ever asked who has been involved with the sea, both in business and residentially, over even greater periods of time all agree wit me.
Like someone who has just retired from a boat slipping business after 57years. A business that relied entirely on the depth of water at his slipway as to how big a vessel he could repair or service. A business that had to be aware whether tides were springing or neaping so that when they slipped a boat worth possibly a million dollars and did the work required, they could then get it back in the water and back to earning its keep as soon as possible.
This makes such a person extremely focussed on sea levels for all of those 57 years.
If you would like to come and meet him I'm sure he would be more than happy to give you the benefit of his observations.
Too much of a coincidence, do you think?
Happy to read his paper bill if you have a link. Didn't see one.
If you know the answer why don't you say so instead of just blithering like bern.
Still waiting, bill.
Don't tell me I'm right?
That Lovelock has NO observational evidence that SLR is happening in MB?
But that he is happy to wet the bed and prognosticate like a Doltoid?
What has the world come to?
Lovelock et al. used the Brisbane Bar tide gauge.
What else is there for Moreton Bay?
Geez.
Spangly, you don't do context, either, do you?
The blockquote means I was quoting someone directly. Not you. So, who was I addressing, pet? And you can't work out which paper is being referred to, can you, you poor old thing?
'Wet the bed' - the psychosexual aspect of Denial is going to be a rich field for future psych-research. Testicles, bed-wetting, faeces - it's enough to potentially revive the fortunes of the Freudians!
Spangly:
Don't know if you've noticed, Spangly, but slipways are designed with variations of sea level in mind - they tend to extend at least a couple of metres above mean sea level and a couple of metres below it.
Once again you are using a proxy for sea level rise which is completely inappropriate because it can't possibly give you an accurate measurement.
And again, you're on about measuring sea level rise using two data points:
- one vague memory
- one vague photo
So Lovelock has No observational evidence of his own other than a tide gauge with lots of bits missing.
That figures.
And Vince, you've run a slipway, hey?
You know what happens when the slipway carriage reaches its lowest point and there still isn't enough water to float your boat?
On OR off?
But then of course you haven't been able to float your boat at any point during this debate have you?
"What else is there for Moreton Bay?
Geez".
SFA apparently, with you lot in charge.
What, you don't accept the stringently-controlled scientific collection of sea level and tide data by thousands of scientists and technicians? The observance of the results of tens of thousands of controlled collection of data points? By this logic reporting the weather is useless unless the meteorologist takes a photo of the sun or of the rain or of the wind.
Perhaps you really do mean that a happy snap is the only way to record sea level... This is Hanran Street, Townsville, 3 February 2011. It wasn't even a king tide, and yet the sea level is certainly higher that you describe in your stories. By your logic this proves sea level rise.
Oh, you don't like it because there's a storm lurking around somewhere? But you don't account for meteorological phenomena such as barometric pressure* in your pseudoscientific world, so why should I when you demand a photograph?
Oh, so it's 30 observations now? For most of the last three years it was one undated observation at the Nerang river wall , and then just recently it was another at the lighthouse in Moreton Bay.
Do you have times, dates, and locations for each of these 30 observations? Do you have the accompanying meteorological, oceanographic, and other relevant data that should be factored into any analysis? Or are they just more fæces-covered rabbits?
As to the rest of your acquaintances' observations, let's see the records. That's all we're asking for. Some data. Not memories coloured by conservative ideology, anti-intellectual prejudice, and the erosion of time.
Heck, you do realise that the very questioning of these people by you, tainted as you are by a particular bias, can introduce false memories? There's a body of literature devoted to this very phenomenon, and it's one reason why reliance on anecdotal recountings requires specialised training, scrupulous survey design, stringent analysis protocols, and extensive re-testing to account for unexpected contamination.
What, you don't accept the stringently-controlled scientific collection of sea level and tide data by thousands of scientists and technicians? The observance of the results of tens of thousands of controlled collection of data points? By this logic reporting the weather is useless unless the meteorologist takes a photo of the sun or of the rain or of the wind.
Perhaps you really do mean that a happy snap is the only way to record sea level... This is Hanran Street, Townsville, 3 February 2011. It wasn't even a king tide, and yet the sea level is certainly higher that you describe in your stories. By your logic this proves sea level rise.
Oh, you don't like it because there's a storm lurking around somewhere? But you don't account for meteorological phenomena such as barometric pressure* in your pseudoscientific world, so why should I when you demand a photograph?
Oh, so it's 30 observations now? For most of the last three years it was one undated observation at the Nerang river wall , and then just recently it was another at the lighthouse in Moreton Bay.
Do you have times, dates, and locations for each of these 30 observations? Do you have the accompanying meteorological, oceanographic, and other relevant data that should be factored into any analysis? Or are they just more fæces-covered rabbits?
As to the rest of your acquaintances' observations, let's see the records. That's all we're asking for. Some data. Not memories coloured by conservative ideology, anti-intellectual prejudice, and the erosion of time.
Heck, you do realise that the very questioning of these people by you, tainted as you are by a particular bias, can introduce false memories? There's a body of literature devoted to this very phenomenon, and it's one reason why reliance on anecdotal recountings requires specialised training, scrupulous survey design, stringent analysis protocols, and extensive re-testing to account for unexpected contamination.
Too much of an overweening Dunning-Kruger confidence in your own non-scientific abilities, Drongo.
Why? Are you starting to feel the heat Drongo?
[*Nor do you account for oceanographic phenomena such as current magnitude and direction, or climatic phenomena such as El Niño/La Niña alterations of regional sea level, but I think that's been noticed once or twice before...]
"What, you don’t accept the stringently-controlled scientific collection of sea level and tide data by thousands of scientists and technicians?"
Do you mean the gravy meter or the Brissy TG with all the bits missing?
"Oh, so it’s 30 observations now?"
You don't pay attention do you bern? How many times have I told you about properties I have been involved with at Biggera Waters, Oates Estate and Runaway Bay and these are all much closer to the seaway than Chevron Is. Chevron just happened to be the oldest benchmark. I still own a place at Oatland Esp, looking out through the seaway and that was developed in the mid '60s, about 47 yeatrs ago. Biggera Waters followed and Runawat Bay in the very late '60s.
I was involved in all those developments and the developers even used my ketch with me down below and Sir James on deck for the cameras. I have told you but you choose not to remember that the developers had to build the sea walls to the king tide datum at that time. Those king tides likewise surpassed those wall heights at first yet they don't today.
I have also told you [yet you choose to forget] of jetty builders, boat builders and other businesses apart from slipways that have been incredibly connected to and interested in SLs around MB who will all tell you that THERE IS NO SLR.
"Why? Are you starting to feel the heat Drongo?"
It's just that the stupidity and ignorance of your obtuse posts [particularly when you double up each time] become a little tiresome.
Why don't you tell us exactly how many times? And whilst you're at it, link to each occasion - just to corroborate your claim, of course...
And you've been pointed to the river dredging, the relocation of the mouth, the damming of the Nerang, the alteration of drainage and riverbank characteristics, and any number of other confounders that all contribute to the height that a tide achieves in a river, but you just won't let the fucking facts permeate into that wizened pea that you call a brain.
Even an Irish setter puppy can be toilet trained, but getting realisation to take root in your head appears to be one step to far. Your parents must have been delighted that they were able to move you on from nappies, when that day finally came.
Well, if you weren't so bloody dense, and so completely and utterly refractory to understanding that your observations are contaminated by multiple confounding factors, thus rendering your conclusion about sea level invalid, we wouldn't have this ad nauseum repetition of rubbing your nose in the shit that you persist in dumping here in public.
Bad dog, Drongo, bad dog.
...one step too far...
"And you’ve been pointed to the river dredging, the relocation of the mouth, the damming of the Nerang, the alteration of drainage and riverbank characteristics,"
Yes bern, we've had this from you ad nauseum too. It's called "don't raise the bridge, lower the river". As though opening the seaway can lower max SLs.
You do realise that if that worked, you've stumbled upon the solution to SLR but some might disagree.
Now instead of just swearing, frothing and stamping your foot in petulance, can I make an appointment for you with some of these business people?
You will find them very smart people with minds of their own who don't agree with me on many things so you can even carry on your rants about me and they won't mind a bit.
Or is that sort of reality too confronting for you?
But to help get some of the petulance, visciousness and lack of empiricism out of your system, Monckton has something you need:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/24/of-doric-columns-and-climate-chan…
Comprehension is not your friend, is it Drongo?
The factors I mention don't lower sea level, they affect river level - either by affecting how water flows down the river, or how it surges in from the sea.
You can persist in pretending that these factors don't exist, but the truth of them will not go away. None of the spectators here are sucked in by your "look, squirrel" antics - unless of course they're as illogically-wired as are you.
Only after you first visit Jean Palutikof, who is the director of the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility just a few kilometres from your river wall on Chevron Island. We've discussed this before, remember? You have a whole lot of explaining to put to her, correcting the massive mistake that she and thousands of her professional oceanographic colleagues have made.
Or are you too scared to front up to a woman who is demonstrably much smarter than you? That is the only reason I can come up with for your avoidance of correcting the record... you're so fervent about how right you are that it can only be a terrible gynophobia that is keeping you from overturning a whole discipline of science.
Excellent. So when I explain to them that local and regional confounders superimpose on sea level they should understand that raw king tide heights do not reflect global sea level trends.
Perhaps once they understand this they can go back to you and try in their own turns to set you straight.
Not at all. In the past some of my positions have involved explaining complicated and politically-charged issues to ideologically lay people. The smart ones always understand and are prepared to expand their world views.
It's the stupid ones who are the problem. What the Flying Spaghetti Monster hasn't put there humans cannot improve on.
Comprehension is not your friend, is it Drongo?
The factors I mention don't lower sea level, they affect river level - either by affecting how water flows down the river, or how it surges in from the sea.
You can persist in pretending that these factors don't exist, but the truth of them will not go away. None of the spectators here are sucked in by your "look, squirrel" antics - unless of course they're as illogically-wired as are you.
Only after you first visit Jean Palutikof, who is the director of the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility just a few kilometres from your river wall on Chevron Island. We've discussed this before, remember? You have a whole lot of explaining to put to her, correcting the massive mistake that she and thousands of her professional oceanographic colleagues have made.
Or are you too scared to front up to a woman who is demonstrably much smarter than you? That is the only reason I can come up with for your avoidance of correcting the record... you're so fervent about how right you are that it can only be a terrible gynophobia that is keeping you from overturning a whole discipline of science.
Excellent. So when I explain to them that local and regional confounders superimpose on sea level they should understand that raw king tide heights do not reflect global sea level trends.
Perhaps once they understand this they can go back to you and try in their own turns to set you straight.
Not at all. In the past some of my positions have involved explaining complicated and politically-charged issues to ideologically lay people. The smart ones always understand and are prepared to expand their world views.
It's the stupid ones who are the problem. What the Flying Spaghetti Monster hasn't put there humans cannot improve on.
"Only after you first visit Jean Palutikof,"
In case you hadn't noticed bern, this thread is about accelerating SLR. What does JP have to do with that?
Has she made a particular stand on this subject?
Does she have a particular insight into SLs from her own observations and measurements?
You havent mentioned it before.
Or is this just another of your distractions?
The people I have suggested you talk to all are vitally interested and involved with SLs yet you don't want to know about them.
On top of that you have no personal observations of your own yet argue that you are very aware of SLs.
Talking to others who are also very aware of SLs would give you the chance to really get at the truth.
I might even be able to persuade some coastal engineers and scientists to talk to you who are also of the opinion that SLR is not happening in SEQ.
"Excellent. So when I explain to them that local and regional confounders superimpose on sea level they should understand that raw king tide heights do not reflect global sea level trends"
Is that a "Yes" then bern?
Does she have a particular insight into SLs from her own observations and measurements?
Why does she have to when you don't donkey?
The gravy meter at work:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/24/sea-level-rate-of-rise-shown-to-b…
"I might even be able to persuade some coastal engineers and scientists to talk to you who are also of the opinion that SLR is not happening in SEQ."
I should have said, "are able to show from local obs that SLR is not happening in SEQ".
Their opinions they have to keep to themselves.
So you agree with the local data. You just have some sort of mental deficiency that prevents you from understanding that 'local' is not 'global'.
Got it.
Call that gravy?
THIS is gravy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_P._Cazalot,_Jr.
"So you agree with the local data. "
So you agree it isn't global data.
Still posting links to the crank blog run by Anthony Watts, I see.
Determined to remain misinformed.
Oh, indeed she has Drongo. You'd know that if you'd ever heard her speak.
And given that she's within walking distance of your river wall, you should be looking up their seminar program and taking every opportunity to hear Professor Palutikof and her colleagues give presentations.
Why won't you ask her yourself? Are you so insecure about your claims that you are afraid to approach a lady and correct her and her colleagues' misapprehensions about what the world's sea level is doing?
I've never said that. In fact I said quite the opposite - "[n]ot at all" was the phrase I used in my last post, in fact.
You are verballing me. You are constructing another Drongo Straw Man over which to drape those distracting squirrels. You're a tendentious old bastard aren't you?
You're also a doddering forgetful old bastard Drongo.
I spoke of changes to tides and shore flooding in my own part of the world three years ago when you first sprayed this ridiculous fairy story of yours. Go have a look and see if you're clever enough to dig up the posts.
But really, do I have to have my own photo album of river walls, and the uncritical remembrances of anonymous folk from over half a century ago, before I can engage in the discussion about sea level rise?
You're off your rocker.
Ah, so you're slipping now, hey Drongo?
So it's no longer "sea level decrease", and it's now just in south east Queensland?
What, did you finally get around to looking at figure 2 of the Skeptical Science post that shows the relative sea level rise trends across the planet? Is it finally dawning on you that you've been holding the wrong end of the stick the whole time?
Absolutely. With bells on.
You can fly me to Queensland, and put me up for the duration, and accompany me to see Jean Palutikof and her colleagues, and we'll even bring your "coastal engineers and scientists" along for the excursion so that everyone can get the best opinions.
I will enthusiastically talk to your folk, and they can benefit from expert opinion at the same time. You can bring your photos, and your friend with the slip can bring his stories, and we can get it all sorted out once and for all. I'll even bring a video camera and a digital voice recorder so that nothing is lost to posterity. I'll be diligent in making sure that every second is posted on the internet for all to view.
Great idea Drongo! let's do it!
Or, if your knees are starting to shake again (ooh, scarey smart girls!), you can invite your "coastal engineers and scientists" to make their statements here and we can see the depth of the "evidence" on your side.
Your choice Drongo. Do let us know soon.
From Spangled Drongo:
This is pathetic even by the low standards of the WUWT gang! The "adjustments" between versions are the addition of extra data on to the end of the data set. As you add data to the end of a data set like this it is perfectly normal to have small (note the y-axis on their graph) changes in the trend. He's even linked to all of the data files so you could have seen this for yourself.
What a joke!
And what does the "gravy meter" (whatever that is) have to do with this?
Whether global/local/regional sea level is going up, down, or staying constant, you really are completely out of your depth, aren't you?
OOPS!! I went off half-cocked there - I apologise!
He does say that he only takes the same number of entries (i.e. the same time period) for each time series. The difference between first and last is 0.13 mm/year - much less than the error bars of ~0.4 mm/year.
The increase of 0.43mm.year he talks about would be for time series of different lengths, and would include the recovery from the big 2010/11 La Nina event and is not surprising looking at the time series.
My apologies!
Bernard:
Now THAT is a challenge! :)
Put me down for a copy of the video...
Interestingly I spent some time yesterday averaging monthly MSLs for representative years for the Brisbane tide gauge eg the average monthly MSL from that data for say 1971, 81, 91, 01 11 or for 78, 88, 98, 08 etc.
What that showed was that sea levels according to that data have been relatively stable across a small range of fluctuation up until about 2003 or so. There is a persistent increase above the average range since then, most noticeably in the past few years.
On the basis of which, I'll have to agree with Lovelock's claim of an acceleration this century, based on the data from that particular tide gauge.
Minor caveat to that... While the average MSL does show an increase over the first decade of this century, it doesn't get us to figures wildly out of kilter with the numbers for the early part of the record in the 60s.
If you eyeball that graph, you'll see that MSL has trended down since the 60s, then risen again since about 2000. But not to a point substantially different from the 60s. I can't comment on how that compares to earlier times as there is no date.
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_59980_SLI.shtml
"Why won’t you ask her yourself?"
I have spoken to and corresponded with many of the scientists in her facility long before she was ever parachuted in and as she is only using the data they have collected, the only icing she would add to the cake is the gravy meter.
Which is all any of you have, let's face it.
The fact that she was very active with the Met Office with her unpleasant emails with Phil Jones regarding providing FOI to Climate Audit, do not augur well for an unbiassed attitude.
It is interesting that since she left, the Met Office have down graded their alarmism on GW and now say that by 2017 temperatures will have remained the same for about 20 years.
Their weather reports are more realistic in acknowledging the cold weather, too.
Paying your fare and accommodation for us to meet with her would seem to be to the advantage of the gravy meter specialists.
Griffith U have been all over this problem and are among the people I mention above who can't show SLR here.
Why don't you just talk to these experts yourself and see if they have any of their own obs?
There are also SL scientists at GCCC who who have written papers [linked on this thread] on local SLs who you can also contact and quote.
If you're not prepared to talk to the real, involved business people and residents, why don't you at least talk to these boffins you obviously feel more at ease with and provide some genuine debate on actual happenings instead of just quoting motherhood and the gravy meter.
And stop wasting everyone's time until you have.
"Climate Audit" is a political lobbying group led by a mining-stock promoting crank called McIntyre whose FOI requests were a deliberate campaign of harassment designed to honest impede scientists in their work.
Gravy train? Look no further than Climate Audit's source of funding and the political nature of their work.
Scepticism fail from Drongo.
Spangly and Wilbur Cobb; separated at birth?
You're an awful liar, Spanky.
Why bring this supposed 'correspondence' up at this stage, other than to make your claims seem slightly less cringeworthy than they already are?
Not very interesting.
Brisbane isn't the globe either.
What IS it with these deniers and geography?
Names please.
Let's test this.
"Gravy train? Look no further than Climate Audit’s source of funding and the political nature of their work"
If you have one scrap of cred Vince, produce the source of CA's funding you refer to or shut up you face.
"You’re an awful liar, Spanky."
When anyone's as fact-free as you chek, I suppose they can make any stupid claim they like.
Know this feller do you chek?
Dr Peter Helman
Senior Research Fellow
Griffith Centre for Coastal Management
Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland
You can prove I haven't been in touch with him over SLs, can you?
Likewise Qld Govt Maritime Services scientists and GCCC scientists?
You are a bigger windbag than berdie num nums.
So you think ClimateFraudit doesn't get paid at all?
And so very snarly when your beloved cop shop is smeared. I guess the truth hurts, little girl. Hurts like hell, huh?
Bucolic Scatologist bern back in stereo again. He must love the response of his own echo.
"Let’s test this."
Pity you weren't interested in testing some actual, physical SLs bern.
BTW, have you been paying attention to the current weather pattern in coastal Qld?
Bears out perfectly what I have been trying to get through your thick skull for the length of this thread.
"So you think ClimateFraudit doesn’t get paid at all?"
If you've got any evidence of any inappropriate funding for CA spit it out or likewise shut your pathetic, miserable, whining face.
All you unbelievable Doltoids can do to maintain your mad, reality-denying religion is to tell lies and slander honest people.
Either come up with the evidence or have the decency to apologise.
Ah, a name!
And what did Dr helman tell you about sea level rise Drongo?
More to the point, what was his response to your notions? Assuming that you informed him of them, of course...
Good lord...
The point is Spanky, to back your rather late in the day claim that you have, and the relevance of your claimed 'correspondence'. At the moment it merely looks like nothing more than a copy'n'paste from an 'our staff' page. presented with a big dollop of affrontedness.
Also this bloke many times:
Darrell Strauss BSc(MetOc), PhD
Research Fellow
Griffith Centre for Coastal Management
Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus Qld 4222
The point is chek, you called me a liar. Here are two people to ask. Now prove it or apologise.
Or shut your face!
Ah, another name!
And exactly what did Dr Strauss tell you about sea level rise Drongo?
Do he and Dr Helman agree with you? Please share, and then we can get on with the process of corroborating your accounts with theirs.
The point is chek, you called me a liar.
And your story has been curiously changeable over the years - from tale of the wall on the Nerang - until that was shown to be subject to other factors when you chaged it to Moreton bay with its sunken pier and flooded lawns, neither of which had been mentioned prebiously. None of it has the ring of veracity about it, Spanky. Including random staff lists.
Truth is an affirmative defence.
So your point is..?
ROFLMAO x 100!!!
Spanky, you're not one to talk about decency, evidence or apology.
The only one LESS qualified than you is Joan who goes apeshit every time they're accused.
Just like you.
Darrell Strauss Phd does not seem to support Spangeled Dongle's hare brained drivel:
"Coastal communities in the Gold Coast, Australia, are particularly vulnerable to climate change, considering
their exposure to changing sea levels and storms, the sensitivity of the sedimentary system, and the current
capacity to respond to future challenges. In this paper we assessed the overall vulnerability of Palm Beach, a
Gold Coast suburb, by (i) modeling extreme storms under future sea levels (ii) modeling the response of the
beach to extreme storms under future sea levels (iii) assessing the level of adaptation of coastal management and
the adaptive capacity of the coastal community. Results show that sea level rise can trigger higher storm surges
and extreme erosion events and that the current level of adaptation and adaptive capacity is still insufficient to
cope with such challenges."
"The assessment is based on the current situation and on two
scenarios of sea level rise: 0.5 m by 2050 and 1 m by 2100."
http://www.form.ics2011.pl/artic/SP64_245-249_M.%20Sano.pdf
I can't believe that Spangly didn't think anybody here wouldn't check his references. Remember, Google Scholar is not your friend, SD
JohnL.
Peter Helman is similarly on the punblished record as strongly supporting the consensus on sea level rise.
This is why I am so curious to hear what these two men said to Drongo. For some peculiar reason Drongo didn't think to include such information when he first referred to each of these scientists, and he's since been rather quiet on the matter.
Perhaps Drongo equates being "in touch with [them] over SLs" as being the same as either telling these scientists that they are wrong, or that they told him that the consensus is wrong.
Naturally this will all be cleared up soon when Drongo returns and carefully explains himself, with references to times and to places and to what occurred. Oh, I forgot - Drongo never provides any evidence with which to support his claims, and he never pays any attention to what others say if the saying disagrees with his narrative...
This Dr Peter Hellman?:
"When Dr Peter Helman lay in bed at night in his beachside home in Suffolk Park 15 years ago, he could feel the house “wobbling” at night on its sand base, as the sea pounded the shores nearby.
“When there was a big swell, the coast seemed like jelly,” Dr Helman said. “I thought ‘my house won’t survive a big storm’.”
That was when he decided to sell up and move to higher ground. He bought a house on a large lump of bedrock at Broken Head, 300m from the sea, but now he’s moving on from that too.
“The whole coast is being eroded by rising sea levels,” Dr Helman said. “Headlands will be shaved off and estuaries will fill up. Living on the coast is not sustainable.”
He tells me the beach where we are sitting now at Broken Head would have once been 20 kilometres inland; that old sand dunes exist in inland Byron Bay and that the sea will again go inland.
“You don’t need to have a PhD or believe in climate change to realise that the sea levels are rising,” he said.
Two years ago, Dr Helman completed a six-year study of severe storms on the east coast of Australia for his PhD in Resource Science and Management at Southern Cross University, and the results should send strong messages to people living along the coastlines of Australia. His research documented 200 years of weather events, their frequencies and their effects on the coastline"..
That should have been Dr. Peter Helman in the link. But I'm still mystified as to how Spanky thinks it helps him to throw the name out.
Nor that of Dr. Darrell Strauss who lists "Coastal zone impacts of climate change" as one of his main research interests.
Just to put you confused, Denying Doltoids straight:
Drs Helman and Strauss' names were supplied to show chek that I have been in touch with GU scientists over local SLs in recent years.
To call the lie on what he said.
I have said before that GU, even before the advent of Dr Jean Palutikof [who is also an alarmist from her pedigree] only believe the gravy meter when it comes to SLs.
There are other coastal scientists from Qld Marine Services and GCCC who are more sceptical on local SLs than GU.
I have told you Ds many times over the last couple of years that I have many benchmarks WRT local SLs but you only choose the ones that suit your convoluted arguments and conveniently ignore the more straight forward ones.
Coincidently, at prersent, Moreton Bay is being "inundated" by ex tropical cyclone Oswald that is predicted to cause extensive flooding at this mornings big tide.
This tide is ~ 20 cms lower that the HAT of the 12th Jan but the surge is supposed to far exceed that.
This constitutes one of the "hills" in the billiard table principle which essentially means that our locality will possibly have the highest SLs on earth this morning so let's just see how that compares with previous years.
And that contact was you asking if they wanted fries with it.
Haven't you learned your lesson yet, Spanky?
Stop lying.
What other datasets do you imagine your imaginary and (of bloody course) unspecified 'sceptics' are using?
Two questions:
1) Why haven't you mentioned the "more sceptical" scientists months or even years ago, if they support your case?
2) If they're "sceptical on local SLs", are you saying that they either believe that it's decreasing, or increasing at a high rate? You see, professional oceanographers acknowledge that sea level rise around Brisbane is only slightly positive, relative to that which is occurring elsewhere around the planet, so your whole issue about the magnitude of sea level rise in your area is a straw man anyway.
It's worth noting though (yet again) that even this slightly positive increase in sea level still refutes your claims, especially as you claims are not accounting for confounding factors.
You think that we're ignoring "straight foward" sites that you've mentioned "over the last couple of years"?! Excuse me, but you are seriously rewriting the history of this this and the previous, related threads.
Besides the river wall which is the only site to which you've been referring for most of the last three years, you only raised the Cleveland Point lighthouse lawn on the 14th of December last year - that's only just over a month ago - and you only raised the subject of slipways at some vague location (I don't recall if you subsequently named it, but if you did you're welcome to supply the link) on the 13th of January, just two weeks ago. That is nothing in the span of a bebunking of your three year old claim, and anyway we've hardly been "ignoring" them, as the many recent comments from us on this thread attest.
And if you have raised other sites for serious discussion prior to December, please feel free to link to them. I don't mind being corrected - although if your response is the same as it always is when I invite you to link to posts that contradict my statements, you won't be posting anything at all...
And your (very recent) "straight foward" sites are subject to most of the same confounders as your Nerang River wall - you just keep ignoring those factors - as if ignoring them will somehow make them magically disappear.
Meaningless blather. You are yourself admitting that the tide is not a king tide, so what does its lower height mean in your story?
And even if you account for its "~ 20 cms lower" peak, where is your actual data that lists and accounts for each of the factors that can affect tide height at Moreton Bay, or anywhere else?
We keep asking you for the weight of the elephant in the room, and all you can respond with is that its tail points down and has a fluffy bit on the end.
Right, answer us this: how do you know that your alleged high king tides from the 1940s and the 1960s/70s are not just more transient "hills" on your "billiard table"? Why were they permanently reflecting sea level then, but they're temporary inconveniences that you can ignore now?
Answer us that.
[*It's telling that you think that complexity equates with convolution. Just goes to show how little that dried black pea can process...]
Uh, hang on - the Billiard Table Principle has hills in it?
What textbook can I find this Scientific Principle described, because I am unable to understand it?
Also, what useful function does it serve? Is it a predictive tool? Or can it be used to test data?
Please explain....
Yes, Spangly, do these scientists collect data in the form of blurry photos and vague anecdotes, to?
If that's the quality of their work, do you think taxpayers' money should be funding their wages?
Or is it possible these scientists have a folder labelled, CRANKS, in their filing cabinet, and all your emails have been printed out and filed accordingly?
Drongo seems to have suddenly gone quiet after quiet a Keysian run of bravado. Perhaps he needs to phone a friend.
Or perhaps the weather in his corner of the world is preoccupying him. Which begs the question - how many years of frequent severe weather events must he endure before he admits that global warming is actually affecting his climate?
Spangly Method Data Collection Update: Sea Level Rise Confirmed!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/b7nfc25
Drongo seems to have gone quiet.
I thought that he'd be here with bells on to tell us all how the Pacific Ocean is disappearing.
Maybe he has to wait for his riverside location to dry out a bit so he can send in another bit of spurious "data" to Marohasy's crank blog?
Perhaps Brad Keyes would like to take up where Drongo left off...