He ‘could’ be worth reading
— by Owen Jennings
Member, NZ Climate Science Coalition
Someone called James Renwick, described as a “climate scientist”, managed to get himself on the front page of Granny Herald. I’m not sure what a climate scientist is. We never used to have such a term – we just had geologists, physicists, biologists, chemists, etc.
But now I stop to think, we might have had a climate scientist down the West Coast when I was a kid. Old Harry Watson was the local guru on all things climate. He knew if it was going to be a wet summer or a cold winter. He could tell you which week to cut the hay or castrate the lambs. He was always crystal clear, very definite and stuck to his guns. Mind you, predicting a wet summer on the Coast was a pretty sure bet.
But this guy Renwick doesn’t know his job. He’s all “coulds”: it “could get hotter”, it “could get wetter”, the sea level “could rise”, the Pacific Islands “could become uninhabitable”, New Zealand “could become a haven for refugees.” What a wimp! The Herald calls him a professor. Old Harry leaves Renwick for dead on climate predictions and Harry isn’t a “professor” of anything much although he does know when the whitebait are running.
What’s the use of “could” happen? All things “could” happen and all things “could” not happen. It’s about as useless as it gets. If he’s a professor he should give references to back up his “coulds”. That’s what real scientists do.
Coulda shoulda woulda
Come to think of it, maybe he got warned off by that guy Hansen – he is another professor of climate predictions and he said back in 1998 that New York would be half under water by the year 2000. He should have said “could be under water” — coulda been safer.
Or maybe it was a warning from that other great professor – Albert Gore. He made a movie about the nasty things that were going to happen – no arctic, no polar bears, no snow on Kilimanjaro, no food, no future. Professor James should have told him about “could”. But, come to think of it, James will probably never get a Nobel Prize and a $300 million bank account.
He “could” get a job advising TIME magazine though. TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977, cover featured a story, “How to Survive the Coming Ice Age.” It included “facts” such as scientists predicting that Earth’s so-called average temperature could drop by 20 degrees Fahrenheit due to man-made global cooling. Dr Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned readers that “the drop in temperature between 1945 and 1968 had taken us one sixth of the way to the next Ice Age temperature.”
Now TIME have come out with a totally opposite version — we’re all going to a hot hell in a handbasket. They have dropped the “could”. They must be right this time, for sure. They would have been better to follow James’s lead and add a “could” or two again.
Mind you, Professor James might be on to something with his “could be hotter, could be wetter” meme. The IPCC, a group set up by the UN to inflict global warming on us, get all antsy about predictions and they’re a bit more sophisticated than Kiwi James. They use lofty terms like “low confidence” and “high confidence”. In other words they haven’t got a clue and their pride won’t let them be simple and clear-cut, like my old mate from down the Coast.
Old Harry Watson
One thing for sure, old Harry doesn’t have any “models” to go by — although he did have a Model T years ago. It was a darn side more reliable than the models Professor James reviews. Harry would have told James to “get real” had he seen the models James relies on. He would have pointed out that when their predictions are a degree out, it’s time to give up. “You’d be better off coming down the Coast and catching some eels while I teach you a few facts about what the climate does,” would be Harry’s advice.
“As for ‘catastrophes’, the only catastrophe we have had down here is when we elected that O’Connor guy to Parliament. Another Irishman preaching what ‘could’ happen. And ’emergencies’, yep, we have one of them — the cockies are getting chased out by trees. And what happens when the local shuts down and I can’t get a beer? That’s a real emergency.”
“Send that professor down here — I’ll sort out his coulds.”
Views: 1175
Hi Owen ,
In our stuff paper very soon to be stuffed , yesterday the prediction from some one probably by the first name James stated that in the next 30 years our sea level will rise by 30 centimeters .
For a paper to print this utter rubbish without any checking says everything about our news reporting
I have been told by the best earth scientist in New Zealand that our sea level rise is 1.5 mm per year and there is no sign of any acceleration.
1.5 mm times 30 comes to 4.5 centimeters not 30 centimeters.
One centimeter per year would be a rise of one meter per century a rate that has not been recorded since the last ice age was retreating from the Northern hemisphere 12 to 15 thousand years ago .
Greenland’s ice melt has averaged about 103 billion tonnes of ice per year and that is contributing to the 1.5 mm sea level rise and also warmer water in the worlds oceans ,
There would have to be a 7 or 8 fold ice melt in Greenland every year to accelerate the sea level rise to a centimeter per year .
We are being bombarded with propaganda running up to the climate meeting in New York .
It makes you wonder why the UN don’t use Skype instead of there fossil fueled air planes .if the climate doomsters really believe the nonsense they spout .Oh they are the elite so do as we say not as we do.
They should take a lead and show us mere mortals how to save the world .
Graham Anderson
Proud to be a farmer helping New Zealand feed the world.
Gwan: “I have been told by the best earth scientist in New Zealand that our sea level rise is 1.5 mm per year and there is no sign of any acceleration.”
I’m calling bullshit on this, Gwan. Please name this scientist, their credentials for being “the best”, and the analysis that supports the claim about sea level rise in NZ. Because the data, from actual named scientists, say something different.
See the Ministry for the Environment guidance on coastal hazards and climate change , page 81:
And this cites the analysis by Rob Bell and John Hannah.
It looks like your “best scientist” might have just looked at the average over the whole record.
I see from another thread that you’re probably referring to Willem de Lange, who you refer to there as “the best sea level scientist”. Can you provide us with a reference to some recent research he’s published on sea level? I don’t see any on his publication list on the Waikato University website.
Man of Thessaly so you know much more than Willem de Lange .
He has stated to me that his research shows no acceleration of sea level rise and the rise around the New Zealand coast is 1.5 mm per year averaged over any number of years .
So you agree with the dimwit who wrote this opinion and stated it as a fact .10 centimeters a year BS.
Willem de Lange is an honest scientist and if you are going to disparage him for telling the truth that shows how hard it is and how honest scientists to tell the truth .
They have to keep their heads down as when they stand up people like you boy of thistle have a go at them .
Argue the facts boy.
There is no sign of sea level rise acceleration and for any one to state there is they have to have an ulterior motive. as for a seven fold increase it aint going to happen .
They want to scare little boys like you man of thestle . Lies are lies and these people should be taken to court and be made to prove what the have published and there is no proof that any researcher has written that something is going to trigger a massive pulse of melt water from anywhere in the world .
Like it or not what I have written on this site is all factual and you might even learn something here .
Graham Anderson
Proud to be a farmer and trying to get facts about biogenic methane published so that farmers can keep feeding the world .
Gwan: “so you know much more than Willem de Lange”
Perhaps I do; you haven’t provided us with any information about his expertise on sea level, or the analysis that might support the statements you attribute to him. But I wasn’t pretending to be the expert; I cited published results, with publicly-available data and analyses. They say the rate of sea level rise in NZ has doubled of the last 50-60 years. What basis do you have to dispute that? Until you can back up your claims, I still call bullshit. Try responding with some data, instead of resorting to insults.
We don’t know for sure because we don’t know what future greenhouse gas emissions are going to be. What we do know:
1. It will get hotter. We have yet to reach equilibrium climate sensitivity and we will not do so until net emissions reach zero.
2. Sea levels will increase. Multiple metres of sea level rise is already guaranteed but we do not know for certain how quickly that increase will occur. There are multiple potential tipping points. Paleo-climatic history shows that sea level rise in definitely non-linear, .e.g Meltwater Pulse 1A.
When looking for advice about future climate, Prof Renwick knows a lot more than ‘Harry’ or Owen Jennings.
Man of Thessaly and Simon .
I think that people like you are beyond help .
But I will try and help you both even that I think that I am wasting my time .
Google Willem de Lange and then click on the link “Evidence doesn’t support rapid future sea level rise ”
Read this carefully and you might learn a lot that our news media is not telling the general public.
If you think that Renwick is a reputable scientist ,think again.
I have been following his comments for over 25 years and he is far more activist than scientist .
Years ago he wrote in the Herald that the MWP was an inconvenient fact and then a group of scientists proceeded to try and vanish the MWP from history .
The world has been much warmer than present three times since the end of the last Ice age 12000 years ago.
I know that these scientists that are pushing climate change think that because the worlds temperature has increased with the rise of CO2 that C02 is pushing the forcing and that the emissions have to be curbed .
There is no evidence that the doubling of CO2 will cause more than 6 tenths of one degree Celsius of warming . Any more than that relies on positive water vapour feed backs and the tropical hotspot .
Neither of which have been identified and that means that the UN is going to try and restrict economic activity harming millions of the worlds population because of an unproven theory .
Graham Anderson
Proud to be a farmer Where does your food come from ?
Gwan,
I asked you for evidence that Willem de Lange is “the best sea level scientist”, and you provided… nothing. Not a single scientific publication on sea level.
I asked you for evidence that NZ sea level rise has not increased, and you respond with… an opinion piece in the NBR. No analysis.
I don’t care what you believe, and I don’t expect to change your mind, but surely you can see that any council or planner would be absolutely pilloried if they accepted your assertions over the actual data and evidence.
You also gave me a good laugh by saying “There is no evidence that the doubling of CO2 will cause more than 6 tenths of one degree Celsius of warming ”
So, Gwan, how do you account for the fact that we already have about 1 degree of warming, with a CO2 increase of about 45%?
Perhaps you should stick to farming.
Man of T.
At least we can laugh together but were is your proof that the doubling of CO2 will cause any more than 6 tenths of one degree Celsius.
There is no proof that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause more than 6 tenths of a degree Celsius .
The theory that it will cause any more warming than that relies on positive feed backs from water vapour and also the tropical hot spot .
Some scientists may believe passionately that CO2 is the control knob of the climate but this is still an unproven theory as water vapour swamps any effects of CO2 and clouds both warm and cool the earth (which all farmers are well aware )
There is no proof that the warming of one degree Celsius that has happened since 1750 is a not natural variation as the world has warmed from the end of the little Ice age .
Bring some proof to this forum .
Here are some examples that are not facts and are NOT proof .
97% of scientists believe .
Models tell us that CO2 will cause 3.5 to 4.5 degrees of warming.
( All models run hot except the Russian one. )
The world has already warmed one degree since 1750 near the end of the little ice age, and the rise mirrors the rise in CO2 levels.
(Natural variation )
The tropical hot spot has been found .
( If that was a fact it would be front page news for a long time ).
Sea levels are accelerating around the world ,
(This is not what tide gauges tell us .)
Graham Anderson
Proud to be a farmer who understands climate and does not follow the herd .
Hi Gwan,
Glad you enjoy a laugh too, but I’m still calling bullshit on your sea level claims. The analysis of NZ tide gauges shows the rate has doubled. You haven’t provided any evidence to the contrary. Put up or shut up.
You say: “There is no proof that the warming of one degree Celsius that has happened since 1750 is a not natural variation as the world has warmed from the end of the little Ice age .
Bring some proof to this forum .”
Science doesn’t deal in proof – your demand is just misdirection. It deals in evidence. The best estimates of anthropogenic warming are the same as what has been observed, about 1 degree. Physics says so. If you think it’s not caused by greenhouse gases, what’s your alternative? “Natural variation” isn’t an answer. Where do you think the heat comes from?
Man of T ,
You are right out of your depth.
Where does the heat come from ?
The same big orange ball that has always been there .
The sun and you don’t seem to even know that the one degree of warming that has happened since 1750 has happened many times before in the history of the earth .
Many reputable scientists have worked on ice cores and many other proxies and have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the world has been much warmer than present many times in the past .
Willem de Lange is a very reputable sea level scientist and his research shows clearly that the correct sea level rise around the New Zealand coast Just 1.5 mm per year .
If you have another expert that is telling you that it is accelerating bring him on .
By the way John Maunder our representative on behalf of New Zealand at the very first and second world climate conferences arranged a debate on global warming between Willem de Lange and James Renwick and Willem de Langes arguments annihilated Renwicks lame brain 97% consensus claims .
I do not need any proof to claim that the one degree warming that has happened as the world warmed from the little ice age is mostly natural because the world has warmed many times before and Man was not emitting CO2 .
The proof that I have put before you is that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause 6 tenths of one degree Celsius warming .That is a scientific fact I am not making this up . What is made up is the claims that it will be far greater than that and as I have told you that is a theory that has not been proven and relies on positive water vapour feed backs and the tropical hot spot both not located .
CO2 has already risen by a factor of 35% from 300 ppm to 410 ppm the CO2 and as the effect of increased CO2 is logarithmic the effect is most probably now half of what it will reach ,that is 3 tenths of one degree Celsius .
Could you please post a link to whoever has analysis sea level rises around New Zealand and I will get Willem de Lange to examine what has been said .
I believe Willem is an honest scientist as he has no need to otherwise and there are a lot of rubbish reports out there .
Graham Anderson
Proud to be a farmer .
Gwan,
“You are right out of your depth. Where does the heat come from ? The same big orange ball that has always been there .”
Right. That’s where it all comes from, including the warming caused by greenhouse gases. Obviously that wasn’t my question to you, but since you seem to need it spelled out: what mechanism are you proposing caused the Earth to absorb more of the sun’s heat since 1750, other than greenhouse gases? A I said before, “natural variation” isn’t an answer; you need to provide some physics. What do you think? Increased solar radiation? Changing albedo? People have studied these things, you know. What do you know that they don’t?
“you don’t seem to even know that the one degree of warming that has happened since 1750 has happened many times before in the history of the earth .”
Of course I know this. It’s precisely from studies of past climate that we know enough about its causes to be very confident that the current warming is caused by greenhouse gases.
“Willem de Lange is a very reputable sea level scientist and his research shows clearly that the correct sea level rise around the New Zealand coast Just 1.5 mm per year .”
And I asked you to provide some evidence of this research. So far… nothing.
“The proof that I have put before you is that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause 6 tenths of one degree Celsius warming .”
I must have missed that. Could you please repeat this “proof”?
“Could you please post a link to whoever has analysis sea level rises around New Zealand and I will get Willem de Lange to examine what has been said .”
That’s what I gave you in my first post on this thread. It seems you haven’t been paying attention. I’d love to see Willem de Lange’s response.
“I believe Willem is an honest scientist as he has no need to otherwise and there are a lot of rubbish reports out there .”
I also prefer to believe that most people are honest. However, a lot are deluded or foolish, and so there are indeed a lot of rubbish reports out there. Let’s judge them on the evidence, not the author, eh?
Interestingly, Venus probably had surface water for billions of years until a run-away global warming event about 700 million years ago.
https://www.space.com/planet-venus-could-have-supported-life.html
” Venus probably had surface water for billions of years until a runaway global warming event about 700 million years ago”
Yeah, right , Simon… there’s your atmospheric “global warming” caused by the “runaway greenhouse effect”….. you’re parroting away … from the GISS . (the progeny of Hansen) I counted 3 of what Owen Jennings pointed out : ie. “could have” , “may have” and your “probably had” . Pigs could have flown in the Venus atmosphere too. Simon. Back at the start of the 20th century, some were speculating that palm trees grew on Venus.
This latest speculative garbage says..a “resurfacing event” ?.. caused release of CO2 stored in rocks to cause this evil CO2 to heat up the planet. Yeah , it’s the “greenhouse effect” in the atmosphere of Venus causing all that heat… nothing to do with the fact it’s very close to the Sun… takes about one Earth year to spin one day backwards on its axis….and you’ve got one large surface area (cf Mercury) constantly facing the Sun to oxidise the rock to a sea of super-critical CO2. ,completely covering the whole planet. A sea of CO2. So where exactly is the surface of Venus where we are to take our “surface temperature”, Simon.? .Is it above or below “sea-level”?
Logic would say that the very slow revolution of the planet creates an extreme temperature dipole causing this whole sea of super-critical CO2, to travel from the Sun side to the shade side, at a great rate of knots.
Sorry, no atmospheric “greenhouse effect” …. no “back radiation” from “greenhouse gases”.
The crackpot Hansen, should be locked up in a nut-house.
Hey Gwan,
Your sea level assertion is looking more and more like bullshit.
As well as the NZ data showing that the rate of rise has doubled, the latest IPCC report says:
Which is fairly unreadable, but says that the rate of global sea level rise has doubled (at least).
So you really should provide some analysis to back up your claim, or else do the honourable thing and admit that it was bullshit.
Hey Gwan,
Last month you said you would ask Willem de Lange to examine the analysis showing that the rate of sea level rise has increased in NZ. Did you do that? Have you heard back from him? I’m happy to contact him if you don’t want to do it (and I do understand how scared you must be to discover that you might be wrong).
In the meantime, I noticed another study of global sea level rise:
Persistent acceleration in global sea-level rise since the 1960s
I find two points particularly interesting:
– the study shows the good agreement between tide gauges and the satellite observations
– it looks at the regional rates of sea level rise and acceleration, which shows acceleration around NZ
I think it’s time for you to admit that you were wrong to rely on Willem de Lange’s claims (for which you have never provided any evidence or analysis). If you’re an honest man, you’ll admit that openly.
Man of Thessaly
MOT, getting sick of your snark. RT gives you more latitude than a scientific discussion should allow, so grow up.
You could indeed contact Willem, not just wave it around. He has personally confirmed what we say, to my face, by the way. Stable tide guages show no acceleration over decades and more. I live below sea level these past few years, and we have awareness, you might say.
You rely on satellite and IPCC figures. IPCC relies on models. No data, no use at all.
Satellite readings have a bigger error band than the supposed measurements by about 5 to 1. I work with data on Coastal Protection and have for decades . No acceleration from LIA recovery, but far lower than the Holocene Optimum.
I will stick my neck out though and let you know that planetary cooling has started. Martin Mlynczak of Nasa Langley recently figured this out (way after Piers Corbyn) and alerted us a few months ago. Possibly why there is the Extinction Rebellion paid for by Soros etc – Desperation sets in as the scam shatters and normal solar cycles continue. Ask Michael Moore too.
There will be bursts of unseasonal cold, as now but worsening, wet and droughty heat too. Thanks to the Tayler Instability – a solar plasma change caused by planetary gravity effects. Crop losses have started and will get worse. But in spite of rather than because of CO2. Life makes us wonder if we shoild laugh, or cry.
Just do yourselves a favour trolls, and cease the snark. Regards from Brett Keane
Hi Brett,
I have provided links to the analysis of the NZ tide gauge data, which shows that the rate of sea level rise has doubled, and to the satellite data which also shows an acceleration in the region around NZ. Data. Analysis. Reproducible. Recent.
You, like Gwan, respond with assertions but no data or analysis. The best Gwan could come up with was an opinion piece in the National Business Review. Ha! You say Willem de Lange confirms what you say, but you also don’t provide any evidence.
I can understand that you’re getting sick of my snark, but until you put up some evidence, I’ve got to say I think you deserve it. Richard, who is such a fan of evidence, would surely agree.
MOT, you are pushing a Mannian hybrid reconstruction set of graphs. Not actual Stilled Tidal Metrics as are available. That is not Data any more than Mann’s was. Nor is it evidence.
At worst, put into a realistic timescale and using non-hystrionic xy coordinates, we see that our current sealevels are well below their Holocene Optima. Even below MWP.
Copying of botched hybrids as if they were data, advances your case not at all. Nor do ad homs. This is not a childish game. Actual rates vary on yearly scales from positive to negative but are only fast tracked upwards by adding the unreal satellite composites. These have no business on those graphs when we have the likes of Fort Dennison. ENSO effects need proper consideration too, as mentioned in your paper. Pity they spoiled that with false Methodology by splicing of incompatible sources. A fail outside Climatology. Where Manhattan remains above the tide range still. Brett
[Brett]: “you are pushing a Mannian hybrid reconstruction set of graphs”
You’re clutching at straws. The tide gauge observations completely overlap the satellite data, so they can be compared, and they are consistent. The Dangendorf study then uses all the data to conduct their analysis. As it should. And it shows accelerating sea level rise around New Zealand.
The NZ analysis I cited is only tide gauge data. It shows the rate of sea level rise has doubled in NZ ports.
And the rest of your last post is waffle. Still no data, no analysis. You haven’t got any. And you don’t seem to understand what “ad hom” means. Argumentum ad hominem would be if I said “you’re wrong because you’re a loser”. I am not saying that. I’m saying you’re a loser because you are making assertions that you can’t back up. Go on, prove me wrong. Show us some analysis that says the rate of sea level rise in NZ isn’t increasing.
[….]
From “An acceleration in New Zealand’s sea level record?” Cole, Theresa Nell MsC Otago.
Supervisor John Hannah
https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/handle/10523/628
Andy! Yay, some evidence! You’ve saved Gwan and Brett’s blushes, but not their argument. I am familiar with that thesis and the paper they wrote afterwards, and on the matter of detecting an increase in the rate of sea level rise it is not at all convincing. The two main reasons are:
– individual tide gauge records (like individual weather station records) are “noisy”, so it’s very unusual to get a statistically significant acceleration. It’s often even hard to get a significant trend, even when the regional or global one is obvious.
– an increase in the rate of sea level rise does not necessarily manifest with a statistically significant acceleration. You’re a maths guy, you understand that. A good explanation is here: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/07/25/sea-level-rise-has-accelerated/
I guess that’s why the recent analysis of the NZ tide gauge data (by John Hannah, who supervised the thesis you quoted) looks at the rate of rise over two 60-year periods, instead of trying to find a single quadratic acceleration. And he finds that the rate of sea level rise has doubled.
So there we have it: when there’s evidence, it’s possible to do some thinking and decide what it shows. And in this case it’s clear: the rate of sea level rise has increased, both around NZ and globally.
Good to have cleared that up. I look forward to Gwan and Brett admitting it too.
MoT’s previous comment reminds me why I don’t generally bother commenting on climate blogs these days. The mental gymnastics required to come to these conclusions would probably put my head out of joint
Come on Andy, you’re smarter than that. Try to address my points. Why do you think Cole’s conclusion is different from the others’?
Cole did a thesis based on facts. The other conclusions are press releases.
Right. An MSc thesis from nearly 10 years ago is good enough for you, but a more recent analysis by the Supervisor of that thesis, and a Nature paper, and many more, are “press releases”. Clearly you don’t care how silly you appear to be, but consider the reputation of an insurance company or a Council making a planning decision. It’s pretty clear which evidence they’ll rely on, don’t you think?
Your brand of wishful thinking is a textbook example of how to get marginalised. And then you complain about it.
What more recent analysis of that thesis?
The analysis method used in that thesis involved filtering out long term trends from ENSO IPO etc to find the secular trend. I spoke to John Hannah on the phone some years ago who explained this to me, and also that several decades of tide gauge data is needed to infer any change in those trends.
But as you say, the same analysis yields the politically correct result that SLR rates have doubled over the 20th Century. I didn’t see this published in a peer-reviewed journal, maybe I missed it.
MOT – first print the actual data you use so we can see what you are discussing. Brett Keane
Honestly, you two. I’ve already posted the links to all the studies I’ve cited. Since you seem to need your hand held, here’s some more detail:
The more recent (than Cole’s thesis) study by John Hannah is here: Hannah, John & Bell, Rob. (2012). Regional sea level trends in New Zealand. Journal of Geophysical Research (Oceans). 117. 1004-. 10.1029/2011JC007591.
Hannah used this method and updated data in 2016 to calculate the trends for the MfE Guidance, which showed (page 81) that
Thanks MoT, so does that mean that Theresa Cole’s thesis should be retracted and John Hannah thrown under the bus for supervising an “incorrect” piece of work?
Also, what is the acceleration of SLR in NZ? That is in mm yr-2? You claimed that it didn’t fit a quadratic. So what does it fit, a seventh order polynomial? Maybe it doesn’t fit anything. Come on, you’re the expert. People are being driven from their coastal homes based on this “science”.
Of course, the MfE guidance isn’t a peer-reviewed paper. It is a piece of government propaganda. Is there some underlying research that contracts the MSc thesis?
To the untrained eye, the graphs in Figure 2 don’t seem to show a doubling of SLR rates.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JC007591
From the same paper
The word “acceleration” appears nowhere in that paper
https://notrickszone.com/2019/10/21/since-1981-74-of-the-globe-greened-and-crop-production-swelled-by-95-due-to-rising-co2-warming/
When it comes to Publish or Perish, Tamino trolls perish always. Still, I live in hope MOT……
Regards in Science, from Brett Keane, Ruawai
Andy,
1. I don’t think academia works like that. Cole’s thesis isn’t incorrect, it just turns out that analysing individual tide gauges for a quadratic acceleration term isn’t very informative.
2. As mentioned above, quadratic acceleration isn’t very informative. If you want you can look at the region around NZ in the Dangendorf paper linked above, but I’m not bothering. Nor would a higher order polynomial be useful – the sea level curve is not a mathematical function. See the graph of rate of rise on the page I linked earlier.
3. The actual rate of future rise is pretty much unknowable. As the guidance says, planning should be based on the (virtual) certainty that will continue to rise faster than in the past. Are people really being driven from their homes? Whether protection or retreat becomes the best option depends on the place. Sharing the costs of this fairly is a big problem for the country (to put it mildly).
4. As you observe, Hannah and Bell 2012 doesn’t address the changing rate. This is done in Hannah 2016, and the results presented in the guidance.
5. I don’t think the new analysis contradicts the thesis. It just takes a different approach, better suited to a small number of noisy records. Why do you call the guidance propaganda?
6. You should know better than to try and eyeball trends from a noisy graph. Trust the quantitative analysis. That should go without saying – I’m pretty sure you’ve said on this site that you have a maths degree (is that right? apologies if I’m mistaken).
Brett,
Ruawai, eh? No wonder you’re interested in sea level rise. There’s a lot riding on those stopbanks.
What’s the significance of that link to this discussion? The kumara won’t grow so well if they’re under water!
https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.4.103905
More work on the Tayler Instability that is signalling the death of the CAGW scam, as we freeze (maybe, we shall see). It was first known from liquid electrolyte work in batteries. Where they can heat up and blow. In stars, Planetary gravity orbital reaction changes causes it in (of course) cyclic manner. Carrington Events may ensue, but anyway, solar UV and EUV is diverted from our oceans to outer space when it is concentrated and usually misses us.
Still waiting for SW Pacific tidal numbers, not cartoon graphs which are not data as they appear to us.
Our Drainage Board has correct Tidal data so is only worried about one-off events. But as prepared as can be and very experienced. Only our yoga teaching Councillor is spreading alarm but not to us.
Brett
Cole’s thesis isn’t wrong, but it’s not helpful. Analysing tide gauges for acceleration isn’t helpful, in a thesis entitled “Acceleration in SLR… ” or similar. A quadratic equation isn’t helpful, so presumably higher order polynomials are not helpful either.
Eyeballing graphs for a doubling of SLR isn’t helpful. However, the MoE can comfortably state that SLR has doubled over the 20th C, based on no evidence whatsoever. We can also state that SLR will increase in the future, with 100% certainty.
So glad we are beginning to understand the science
Yep, that’s pretty much how it is, Andy, with a couple of quibbles:
– Cole’s thesis was certainly worthwhile, because this analysis hadn’t been done on the NZ tide gauges. But the result (that there is no significant quadratic acceleration) is neither surprising nor helpful. It certainly doesn’t mean that the rate of sea level rise hasn’t increased.
– the statement in the MfE guidance reports John Hannah’s 2016 analysis of the updated tide gauge data. The processing methods are in Hannah and Bell 2012, and the approach of splitting the dataset into two 60-year periods is based on international precedent. Read the references in the guidance. You are simply wrong to say that this is “based on no evidence whatsoever”.
Thanks for this excellent summary Man.
There is no evidence of acceleration by curve fitting tide gauge data over 100 years, but if we split it into two 50 year chunks and do some magic we can find that SLR has doubled in that time, magically with no acceleration
Also, Jeffery Epstein didn’t kill himself.
Why are you resorting to sarcasm when this can be discussed entirely on the analysis? I think you have the maths ability, but you don’t do it. Why not?
There’s no inconsistency in your summary. When the SLR rate curve is irregular and the tide gauge data are noisy, you won’t find an acceleration. That doesn’t mean the rate hasn’t increased. Splitting the dataset is a simpler approach. No magic at all.
Why resort to sarcasm? Because your argument is completely retarded, that’s why.
If a car is travelling at 50 kph for one hour on average and for 100 kph for the second hour, then it must have accelerated at some point, yet you can find no evidence for that acceleration, no model that fits the curve, and no graph that shows the acceleration graphically.
Come back with something that is slightly more advanced that a Gender Studies 101 argument or just stop wasting everyone’s time.
Sadly, MOT will not show our tide data because he has none. His satellite readings have error greater than the claimed range height. Only in IPCC……. and ‘climate science’ could you get this again and again! Nor do ‘analyses’ qualify as anything but massage and data torturing. Bring data, or cut bait.
Brett Keane
You two are getting silly. Andy, who has a maths degree, refuses to comment on the maths but prefers to deal in simplistic analogy and abuse. I think his good friend Thomas described this situation perfectly more than 5 years ago!
Brett, who claims to have a science degree (well, applied science), says that analysis is the wrong thing to do altogether! To me, that looks like you don’t want to learn anything more.
The actual data, both the tide gauge observations and the regressions, are available at the links I’ve already given. You have both failed to critique them seriously and are now dismissing them, so I assume you can’t or won’t.
Although you clearly prefer to base your beliefs on prior conviction and not evidence, I will take little time and prepare an example dataset, to demonstrate that what Andy thinks is “retarded” is actually true. I’m sorry Brett, it will involve some “analysis”! That way, everyone will be able to see that you two are ignoring the evidence with their eyes wide open.
MOT will not bring actual data, because he cannot. Goodbye little troll. Brett
I thought my analogy was helpful, but obviously not. I need to “engage in the maths”, that hasn’t been presented. Obviously my “good friend” Herr Thomas of Hot Topic has got the better of me, and my extreme political views (sarc) are clouding my judgement
This is the same guy that thinks I am planning a 4th Reich in Europe with Steve Bannon and that I am some kind of white supremacist
Clown world
By the way, I find it amusing that “Man” of Thessaly has saved a link to a comment that Herr Thomas made on the now defunct Hot Topic blog several years ago.
Maybe if “Man” spent some time doing more useful things with “his” life then “he” would’t be so tragic and pathetic
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/30/escape-from-model-land/
Back in the real world of non-reanalysis……. Brett, Applied Scientist
An honest person would pay deep attention to all aspects of this resultant discussion on those tidal estimates posed as data……. Brett
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/03/sea-level-rise-alarmist-agitprop/
Oh dear Andy, so bitter and abusive. It would indeed be funny (and concerningly obsessive) for someone to save a comment link like that… but I didn’t. It turned up when I tried to Google where I’d seen your qualifications before. But I do think Thomas got you spot on.
Yeah absolutely spot on.
He claims that I have a maths degree from Oxford: false
He also claims that I am racist and a white supremacist : false (duh)
He claims that I am “Alt-Right” : false
He claims that I am a “brownshirt” : false (duh)
So, everything that Thomas has ever said about me is false, and you somehow have managed to use the magic of Google to find this comment from a known liar and left-wing climate activist to infer my character.
My comment here, my apparently useless analogy of the car, was that in order to go from a value x to a value y, where y > x, then there must have been some kind of increase (acceleration). This doesn’t require a maths degree, a gender studies degree, or any other kind of degree.
Yet, somehow, asking for some explanation of this basic claim makes me “clouded by my political views”. Oh and it’s reasonable, duh, of course, because I’m not screeching “Orange Man Bad” and “waaacist” every 5 seconds that I must be “far right”.
I give up.
It’s pleasing to see that Prof. Renwick won the Prime Minister’s Science Communication Prize.
He is an excellent speaker; drills down to the basic facts, acknowledges the uncertainties where they exit, is not alarmist but pragmatic and optimistic about the future.
I guess we need to be careful what we say in case some rancid leftists take our comments out of context, post a series of lies about us and then people get “confused” about whether these lies are actually true or not.
Also, Epstein didn’t kill himself
James Renwick: Climate change deniers’ arguments are ‘fact-free’
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/07/james-renwick-climate-change-deniers-arguments-are-fact-free.html
Definitely not alarmist at all.
Some more “non-alarmist” news in this morning’s Stuff:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/117192637/untold-suffering-global-scientists-warn-of-climate-emergency
Definitely not alarmist al all
Funny how there’s all this talk of “curbing human population”. It seems to be the same crowd that are calling for people to be sent to “camps”.
I’m still trying to figure out how Man of Thessaly managed to use an internet search engine to associate my name with a comment on a blog written by Herr Thomas of Hot Topic 5 years ago.
Damned if I can figure it out. Maybe he’s full of it again.
I had an idea I might have seen it at Gareth’s place:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22andy+scrase%22+mathematics+site%3Ahot-topic.co.nz
First result on the page, when I do it.
So, he got the Oxford bit wrong, you say. And I doubt those other accusations you refer to are true. But I do think he’s right that your convictions seem to bind you to believe Cole’s thesis when it finds no significant acceleration, and blind you to the fairly simple maths that explain that result and show that the rate of sea level rise has doubled.
I’m still working on a step-by-step example to demonstrate this result. It’s been a busy week for life and work, and this blog comes a distant third in my priorities.
Sadly, Andy, we are reminded of the now mainly defunct or moribund blogs owned by marxo-warmistas of past decades. Our current trolls, and we’ve seen quite a few of them off, hew to the same old dried up decadent truth-twisting. Very boring.
Meanwhile, research reveals new wonders of the Universe continually. Both Voyagers, sent out by a New Zealander, have now entered interstellar space and are still confounding old theories (see Tallblokes Blog). Those same craft once proved the Gravito-Thermal Effect, or the Ideal Gas Laws under gravities of spherical bodies. That is, that all trolls CAGW alarmism is FALSE.
But of course, trollies seek out falsehood as if its foulness were sweet…… Brett
Tamino has been posting quite a bit recently about sea level rise. Sea level rise is non-linear and it is definitely accelerating. https://tamino.wordpress.com/
Simon
It’s a bit strong to claim Tamino has shown that sea-level rise is “definitely accelerating”. Tamino is undertaking some unorthodox data massages which he describes as:
“There’s more to do, and there are serious shortcomings to what I’ve done so far. I think my next step will be a “gridded” approach, and once I look at that I’ll decide where to go from there.”
He also notes that a recent research paper predicting SLR of 3 feet by 2300 has been reported in the MSM as 30 feet by 2100. Crazy.
I’ll make a note for any potential job applications in future that my background can be found in 5 year old comment threads on climate blogs. LinkedIn and Facebook works too
I gosh “man” of thessaly I’m sorry to interrupt your busy schedule. I was merely enquirely how one could publish a paper that simultanously claimed that sea level rise has doubled and and the same time sea level rise shows no acceleration
In your own time. Meanwhile if you’d care to go a site specific Google search to try to smear me based on some far left activist like Herr Thomas of Hot Topic’s random and deranged comment, please be my guest.
Have a nice day
Thanks for your gracious patience, Andy. As promised, a demonstration of how Cole’s thesis could find no significant acceleration in the tide gauge data, while more recent simpler analysis finds a doubling of the rate. Apologies for a long post.
Get the NZ coastal sea level data from here: https://catalogue.data.govt.nz/dataset/coastal-sea-level-rise-18912015
For the sake of this demonstration, any quibbles you might have about the data or processing are irrelevant – it’s just a dataset to show that what Andy said is a “retarded” argument is in fact based on solid statistical analysis. Perhaps his degree was a different sort of maths, but I did expect that he’d engage with the analysis rather than dismiss it outright. Brett, of course, think “analysis” is the wrong approach altogether. He might as well stop reading now.
Extract the Dunedin data up to the year 2000 (it goes to 2015, but I’ll explain at the end why I’ll just use that subset here).
Perform a linear regression. I did it in R, and the relevant summary statistics are:
Coefficients:Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) -2.3537537 0.2589859 -9.088 5.31e-14 ***
Year 0.0011770 0.0001328 8.860 1.50e-13 ***
The final number is the important one: the P value is tiny, and the three asterisks indicates that there is a statistically significant sea level rise of 1.177 mm per year.
Now perform a quadratic regression:
Coefficients:Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 1.153e+01 1.868e+01 0.618 0.539
Year -1.308e-02 1.918e-02 -0.682 0.497
Year2 3.661e-06 4.923e-06 0.744 0.459
“Year2” is “Year^2”, ie the quadratic component. Now see the final P value: very high, no asterisks – there is no significant quadratic fit to these data. So far, this is similar to Cole’s thesis conclusions.
Now split the dataset into two, before and after 1950, and perform a linear regression:
Before 1950:
Coefficients:Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) -1.1606608 0.6079609 -1.909 0.0638 .
Year 0.0005557 0.0003160 1.758 0.0867 .
After 1950:
Coefficients:Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) -2.7988830 0.7886732 -3.549 0.000987 ***
Year 0.0014036 0.0003997 3.512 0.001099 **
Because of the shorter series, the significance is lower, but in the 1899-1949 period sea level rose at about 0.55 mm per year, while in 1950-2000 it rose at 1.4 mm per year.
QED. The rate of rise in the second half of the period was more than double in the first half. But because the dataset is noisy, and the increase in rate doesn’t follow a smooth function, there’s no significant quadratic “acceleration” over the whole period. It just goes to show that eyeballing data isn’t as good as analysing it, and that Andy’s diagnosis of “retarded” was hasty.
It would have been easy to make an artificial dataset to illustrate this, but I thought it would be better to use NZ tide gauge data. However, because of a few high sea levels in recent years, the entire dataset 1899-2015 does now show significant quadratic acceleration. It’s even more significant if you look at the period since 1960. How strange, that’s what the global data say too. Perhaps it’s actually happening…
Apologies if the formatting isn’t clear. I thought the “code” tag would use a fixed-width font, but it doesn’t and the website unusually didn’t give me the option of editing the post. RT, if you are able to reformat the R-output lines into fixed-width font, it’ll be clearer.
And what do the “ul”, “ol”, “li” and “spoiler” tags do in your editor?
Thanks.
MoT,
Apologies for my late entry into this matter.
Inside the html, your R-output lines do indeed look like fixed-width text, but render in the normal variable-width font. Reading, I find the “spoiler” tag obscures the text with a gray overlay. Experimenting, I find the “spoiler” tag is brutally removed (by my theme?] before rendering the html and producing the page. I regret I cannot influence that.
The “ul”, “ol”, and “li” tags do as you might expect those list items to do.
I’ve spent 10 years listening and reading comments from anonymous commenters that say that any arguments that we make need to be done through the peer review process. Now we have any anonymous commenter providing a “robust’ statistical analysis of NZ sea level data that goes against peer reviewed science in NZ
He’s a thought. Use our own name, get your arguments into peer-reviewed journals, and claim your Nobel Prize
(I heard the latter one a lot)
[Andy] “I’ve spent 10 years listening and reading comments from anonymous commenters that say that any arguments that we make need to be done through the peer review process. Now we have any anonymous commenter providing a “robust’ statistical analysis of NZ sea level data that goes against peer reviewed science in NZ.”
You seem to have completely missed the point. Or you’re deliberately avoiding it, because I just showed everyone how wrong you were. The analysis above doesn’t contradict any peer reviewed science in NZ, as far as I know. It shows how Cole’s thesis (and peer-reviewed paper) are consistent with Hannah and Bell’s later peer-reviewed analysis, which was updated in the MfE guidance. Hardly surprising, since John Hannah is a contributor to all that work. Those are the results you should be citing. I don’t have a new contribution to make, I was just explaining to you (the one with a maths degree) how the statements can be consistent.
What is completely missing from this thread is any analysis by Willem de Lange, that Gwan first referred to. Have to say, I don’t hold out high hopes of seeing it. Like I said, I think it was a bullshit claim from the start.
Willem has also told me on more than one occasion that no acceleration in SLR is discernible. He opines that the acceleration is an artefact of the satellite readings, which may be influenced by errors in the geoid, the theoretical underlying shape of the Earth, and are certainly better connected with central parts of the ocean than with the coastlines. In other words, we can trust the tide gauges but not entirely trust the satellite readings. I would add: As the view from my deck shows sea level as it now is, and cannot be disproved by a satellite radar instrument, no matter how finely constructed or well directed, so no tide gauge can be shown to lie.
So, it seems you prefer hearsay and opinion over evidence and analysis. I have to say I’m not surprised, but it’s good to see you admit it.
Because as has been posted on this site already, the tide gauge records show statistically significant acceleration without any reliance on satellite data, both globally and in NZ.
Since you also seem to have contact with Willem de Lange, can you perhaps provide a reference to some scientific publication from him on sea level? Gwan and Brett were unable to.
Actually I retract my nasty comments. MoT has shown how it is possible, via statistical trickery, noisy and sparse data, it is possible to mislead the public in policy documents to infer that SLR has doubled when in fact none of the peer-reviewed literature supports this claim.
Hannah and Bell 2012 deals mainly with inferring trends at lesser known sites from the main ones, and uses principal component and similar techniques to filter out IPO, ENSO etc from the trends. These are similar techniques used in the Cole thesis.
Herr Thomas is also correct in that my “political views” are clouding my judgement. These days, anyone that uses logic, reason and science to deconstruct various official narratives is “far right”, “racist” and a “white spuremacist”
It’s all so clear now.
You’re so funny Andy. I know Richard disapproves of the term, so apologies for using it in his house: but your behaviour in the face of all the evidence demonstrates very well why it’s perfectly correct to call some people “deniers”.
This perfectly illustrates my previous point. Observing the logical fallacy presented by the MoE employee MoT makes me a “denier”. SImilar logic makes people that are against mass immigration “white supremacists”
What makes you a denier is that you deny the evidence clearly presented to you: that using all the available data from NZ tide gauges shows that the rate of sea level rise has doubled. That’s John Hannah’s analysis – you can dispute it with him if you want. I was just trying to explain it to you, but clearly that’s beyond both of our abilities. You have provided no counter-argument or analysis, just outright denial. You have certainly not shown any logical fallacy.
But the more important point is that you do coastal residents a severe disservice by denying the evidence. Sea level rise is getting faster – the NZ and global evidence says so. Spreading misinformation to the contrary risks hurting them financially and emotionally in the long run, if despite their expectations they can’t get insurance and their properties lose value. How much should the NZ public in general compensate their losses? Better face the future with our eyes wide open.
Where in Hannah’s paper does it state that sea level rise has doubled? I’ve looked through the paper a couple of times and can’t find it.
If the evidence isn’t in Hannah’s paper maybe it’s in the private correspondence that your governement department gets. I presume I can get that via the OIA
As I posted a couple of times already, it’s referenced in the MfE guidance (pages 81-82) as Hannah (2016):
I do recall looking at this before.
The MoE guidance is here:
https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Climate%20Change/coastal-hazards-guide-final.pdf
The relevant table Table 7 is on page 81
The supporting Hannah 2016 paper is an internal report prepared for NIWA by Vision New Zealand Ltd (page 263 in the references). AS far as I know this isn’t in the public domain.
Vision NZ ltd is John Hannah’s company:
https://app.companiesoffice.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/2213359
https://climaterealists.org.nz/node/150
Brett
Willem is here.Trolls begone.
MoT claims that “new peer reviewed research” from Hannah and Bell shows that SLR has doubled in NZ over the last century. Investigation of the source material reveals that this research is an internal report prepared by Hannah for NIWA, peer review status unknown.
The statistical techniques used to infer the conclusion that sea level rise has doubled include linear regression over two separate time periods. I’m not a statistician but this technique seems a little suspect when all the other analyses from the same athor shows no acceleration over that period.
The two Church and White papers are often cited to infer a (small) acceleration in global trends. This claim that SLR has doubled in NZ seems problematic
However, apparently I am a “denier” for not accepting two conclusions from the same data that are different, and I have been misleading the public and confusing them (yawn)
Andy, as Texans say about Californians, they’d rather climb a tree and tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the Truth. So it is with Soros’ trolleys until the money runs out….
I have tried hard to explain why these two results are not inconsistent. I see I failed with you. Did any other reader understand? I’d like to think my effort wasn’t wasted.
Why problematic? The global data show the same behaviour (as I linked above).
Why do you have a problem with drawing two conclusions from the same data? The two we have been talking about (no statistically significant quadratic acceleration, and a doubling in the rate when calculated over two periods) are not inconsistent. Just two ways of looking at the same data. If you deny one of the analyses, you are a denier. Especially when your denial seems to be political: you think one of the analyses is propaganda (even though they’re both done by the same expert!)
Thanks for a good laugh Brett, but perhaps you could comment on your purpose in linking a 10 year-old opinion piece. There are some assertions about NZ sea level in there, but no data, no analyses, no references. Altogether a shoddy and unconvincing piece.
As someone said above, “bring data or cut bait”!
Man of Thessaly, it would help if we knew which government deparrtment you work for, as you seem very familiar with the techniques used in this piece of statistical trickery.
Apparently I am a “denier” for not accepting that the same data can yield a result of no acceleration, and simulateneously showing a doubling of SLR in the same period.
No, I do not “deny” that your calculations are intrinsically and internally consisent, nor are my “political views” (whatever they are) clouding my judgement
Statistics is somewhat subjective and isn’t quite as rigourous as pure and applied maths, which is one reason I steered clear of it at University
Similar arguments have been made and refuted here about the so-called “pause” in global warming, that simultanously doesn’t exist and is something we can’t explain, which is hard to justify given that it doesn’t exist (apparently)
However, despite your R code and other exciting commenttary, you made various false claims about peer reviewed research that doesn’t exist. Hannah and Bell made no such comments about a doubling of SLR. The internal report from Hannah to NIWA, cited in the MoE document, seems to have no peer review and isn’t available in the public domain from what I can see
MoT writes
This is really quite a remarkable statement. Apparently the Cole thesis that shows no acceleration in NZ SLR is not wrong, but by fudging the numbers in a different way, we can deduce that SLR has doubled, and by denying this the coastal residents are suffering emotional harm.
When did you psychopaths that work for government depts ever care about the emotional well-being of the citizens of NZ?
Can you please reference where I made these “various false claims”? That’s an ungenerous accusation, and I assure you I’ve only tried to represent the published research honestly. You’re right that Hannah and Bell doesn’t address acceleration, or an increase in the rate. That is done in Hannah 2016. I don’t know what the peer-review status of that report is, you’ll have to ask John Hannah and NIWA. But as I see it, the “research” is the processing of the tide gauge data. Performing linear regression is something anyone can do for themselves. Or do you think every piece of R output needs to be reviewed?
And, honestly, thank you for publicly agreeing that the calculations are correct – that the data can yield a result of no statistically significant acceleration, and simultaneously show a doubling of SLR. This is what you first said was “retarded”, and I’m pleased my explanation has changed you even a little.
My comment on misleading claims is from the above statement from MoT about 14 days ago that infers that there is some connection between the Hannah and Bell 2012 paper and the internal report of 2016 prepared by Hannah for NIWA.
As I said before, there is no mention in H&B 2012 of a doubling of SLR, nor of acceleration in general. The 2012 paper deal mainly with inferring SLR trends at sites other than the main sites.
OK, so the researchers are the same, the data is probably the same, but an internal report, not peer reviewed, not in the public domain, uses misleading statistical techniques on very sparse pre-1960 data to infer that SLR is accelerating when other research from the same author states the converse.
So what you’re really saying is no, I made no false claims. Thanks for that.
Man of Thessaly. Do not thank me for anything. Since commenting on this thread I have come to realise what an utterly despicable piece of low life trash you are. You have no morals, no values and no sense of fair play at all. You are a piece of utter filth
You have obfuscated and presented an absurd argument that two opposing views can be true at the same time.
This isn’t quantum physics
Do not grace me with any good manners. Scum like you that work in government offices and comment under fake names, and presumably get paid out of my taxes, deserve no respect at all.
Do you understand me?
I think I understand you. You’re someone for whom good manners is a veneer you force over an angry personality. You must get good at cleaning spittle off your screen. But when you’ve lost it to that extent, it’s probably better to stop the discussion.
At least you will know in future not to rely on one analysis of any data, just because it gives a result you like. I think it’s clear to all readers that the two conclusions we’ve been looking at are not opposing, just different ways of looking at the same data. Planners, insurance companies, coastal residents and councils would be foolish to ignore the evidence, from NZ and global observations, that the rate of sea level rise is increasing. Understanding that isn’t the hard part. Working out what we should do about it is.
It’s been a pleasure debating the evidence with you. I hope we can do it again some time.
I reserve good manners for people that desrve it. You don’t, for the reasons stated above.
You’ve got the result you want. You paid off Hannah and got him to tweak the data so it looks for user friendly to the companies and agencies that want to get rid of coastal residents.
The can’t say that SLR is increasing and accept the Cole thesis, which states the contrary, as both true
Well who cares? You lot have royally screwed this country with your Zero Carbon Bill.
In a few decades this country will be a third world shithole. Vermin like you will have been at least partially responsible, and I will have found a better place to live
It hasn’t been a pleasure to “debate” you. Eating a shit sandwich would have been more pleasureable
In case MoT thinks he has the last laugh sitting in his government office, mocking us with his fake science and clear corruption that he dangles in front of us like teasing a cat, we may remind him that we still have the Official Information Act where we can request all correspondence between Hannah, NIWA and MoE
Andy, yes of course you are right about this and all other cowardly nameless trolls. Giving them access to the truth is like inviting a bull into your home and expecting no dung and broken china.
At least the bull is a fine and mighty denizen of his home environment, unlike any troll. Such critters make Pilate look upstanding….. Brett Keane, with understanding and in my fleecy vest still. Kids just won’t know what snow is.
Church and White uses a quadratic fit to infer an acceleration that they can quantify. Somehow NZ has a special kind of SLR acceleration that doesn’t exist (according to Cole etc), doesn’t match any quadratic or higher order polynomial, but has magically “doubled” over the 20th C, which is evidence that SLR is accelerating, and is also consistent with the analysis that SLR isn’t accelerating.
Clearly I am not familair with the “new maths”.
Here’s an actual logical fallacy, Andy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
This is all you are relying on. The analysis speaks for itself.
Church and White is also quite old now. Have a look at the Dangendorf study I linked above.
The analysis speaks for itself.
No it doesn’t. The Cole thesis is not invalid, as you have stated. What the “new research” has done is a simple linear regression on two separate time periods.
It looks to me like the analysis does speak for itself – I agree with that summary. To be more precise, these two statements about the NZ tide gauge record are both true:
– there was no statistically significant acceleration in individual tide gauge records when analysed in 2011 (except for Wellington)
– Analysed in 2016, the rate of sea level rise at individual gauges in the 1960-2015 period was roughly double the rate in the 1899-1959 period.
I think we agree on that? We can disagree (for now) on whether sea level rise has actually got faster (globally or in NZ), and how this evidence should be considered by planners etc.
Yes we can agree that sea level rise has doubled and disagree whether there has been any acceleration. Maybe the SLR went through a wormhole in spacetime that caused the doubling.
More likely, an inapproriate statistical technique was used.
Anyway, we can disagree on acceleration, but anyone who claims that acceleration isn’t happening is a denier that is misleading the public and their judgement is clouded by their extreme political views.
Is that clear?
MoT
“the rate of sea level rise at individual gauges in the 1960-2015 period was roughly double the rate in the 1899-1959 period”
What’s your authority for that statement? The literature is clear that there’s been no acceleration of SLR at NZ ports.
Crikey Barry, It’s been a tough journey persuading Andy of that, and I really don’t feel like doing it all again. How about you read the thread before you comment?
Barry, the summary is here:
The MoE, in their official guidance, provide a table that shows data before and after 1960, where the SLR data before 1960 is half of the rate post 1960
This is obtained using linear regression techniques, and is sourced from a private report prepared by John Hannah for NIWA.
The paper is not in the public domain, nor peer-reviewed, as far as I know
Thanks Andy
I assumed MoT had a bit more than MfE’s interpretation of a private conversation between two other parties. It’s unthinkable that Government policy could be based on backstairs gossip rather than on scientific research.
The New Zealand SLR record is robust and available for all to see. It shows no acceleration over a 100-year period, so the fears of MoT and other alarmists are unfounded.
There are a few issues as I see it:
– The technique for filtering out ENSO, IPO, lunar and other cycles is well established and can determine a long term secular trend. It seems that all the research in NZ shows an approx. linear trend in SLR over the last century or so.
– The report prepared by Vision NZ (Hannah) for NIWA isn’t peer reviewed or in the public domain, as I understand.
– there is no justification for the splitting of the data around a 1960 centre line as far as I know. Does 1950 or 1970 yield a similar result?
– from what I can see, linear regression has been used without the filtering described above. Is there any justification for this?
The reasons for the 1960 split are in the guidance (page 80):
Seems reasonable to me, but it would be interesting to see whether the result changes with other times. Why don’t you do it?
I don’t think that’s right. The guidance talks about “updates” of Hannah and Bell, so I assume the same corrections are applied. And the data available from MfE (which I linked above) also say they were processed by John Hannah and NIWA using the Hannah and Bell 2012 methods.
Why are you so unwilling to accept this result? It doesn’t contradict the earlier one (that there was no statistically significant acceleration), and it’s consistent with the global observations. It’s just that individual records (everywhere, not just in NZ) are statistically noisy, so the trends are harder to observe. Can you think of a reason why sea level rise might be getting faster globally, but not in NZ?
How can SLR double if there’s no acceleration?
I can accept the results as presented. It’s not consistent with the rest of the report.
If you can’t present a model or formula for the SLR, then the result is useless from both a scientific and policy perspective.
I can only assume that these numbers are presented as a propaganda tool for the unwary.
You sound quite conflicted! You accept the statistical results that show both a doubling in the rate and no statistically significant acceleration, but you can’t reconcile them. I have tried to explain how this is all consistent, mainly due to a statistically noisy dataset. You don’t take my word for it (fair enough, given the poor opinion you have about me), but I did hope that by providing an example dataset and step-by-step instructions you might try it yourself and gain some understanding.
I think the main obstacle is that you’ve interpreted Cole’s thesis result as “no acceleration”, whereas in fact it’s no statistically significant acceleration. As I showed with the Dunedin dataset above, there is acceleration, but it wasn’t statistically significant because of the noisy data.
Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean a model or formula for past SLR? It doesn’t follow a “formula”, but there’s ongoing research that tries to “balance the budget” of observations against independently estimated contributions from ocean warming, ice melt and terrestrial water storage. Eg Domingues, C., Church, J., White, N. et al. Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea-level rise. Nature 453, 1090–1093 (2008) doi:10.1038/nature07080 That’s a nice clear one (see figure 3); there are more recent references in Table 4.1 of the recent IPCC report on the Oceans and Cryosphere. That’s for global sea level. I don’t think there’s anything for individual NZ tide gauges, beyond the ENSO etc corrections (as in Hannah and Bell 2012). The rest of the statistical noise is probably unmodelable weather etc. Or did you mean future SLR? There are models for that, of course, which are used in policy (eg in the MfE guidance).
I’d still like to hear whether you can think of a reason why sea level rise might be getting faster globally, but not in NZ.
You are right . I accept that the truth that there is no acceleration in SLR and also that there is acceleration in SLR
In other news, today is International Mans Day.
My husband, who is a biological female and mother of our child, needs a prostate checkup.
Can anyone recommend a good doctor?
Andy, only thing that is certain from trolls, is that they will spout tripe until Soros et al cease to pay. Marxo-fascism is re-centring in Germany. Its historic true home……..
Meanwhile the cooling has arrived and we are feeling its late Spring, Oceanic, version right now. Crops are failing, flooding, freezing, as I write. While Shaw tries to screw us farming folk. If food does not get more dear soon, my hypothesis will be struggling. But I will at least admit it.
Then again, no one has bought my soul, I hope. Brett
But when i read our discussions and the endless prevarications of trolls, I am reminded of what is behind and paying for, their mendacity. Same as what is paying for these antifa….. https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/19/radicals-bully-nh-munich-conference-center-force-cancellation-of-13th-skeptic-climate-conference/. This can have only one ending, and noone will like it. Brett, who knows ropes are for splicing. NOT DISPARATE MEASUREMENTS. Boring.
https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/18/co2-levels-are-not-whats-threatening-venice-sea-levels-were-meters-higher-with-much-lower-co2/
However, real people do real science, and trolls do not….. Brett
MoT – sea level rise is accelerating and anyone who denies is confusing the public
MoT – we can debate whether sea level is acceleratiing
M0T – there is no statistically significant sea level acceleration, but it has doubled over the 20th C
In other news, scientists have presented an award at the iG Nobels for a study that shows that cats can be simulataneously a gas and a liquid.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/liquid-cats-triumph-at-ig-nobels/3008003.article
It seems yours was a pure maths degree, because you seem really uncomfortable with the uncertainties of real-world data. Most of your summary here is true, but it’s not my fault the datasets are noisy.
Yes, the global data are pretty clear that sea level rise is getting faster, and show a statistically significant quadratic acceleration..
Yes, I think it’s unhelpful to suggest to coastal residents that this isn’t the case.
Yes, we can debate whether the individual NZ tide gauge records show statistically significant acceleration. They didn’t when Cole analysed them (except for Wellington) but a few more years of data might have changed that, as I noted earlier.
Yes, the NZ gauges show (roughly) double the rate of rise since 1960.
Welcome to the real world, Andy. You can be sarcastic about it, but we have to use the information we’ve got, and keep updating it. “When my information changes, I change my mind. What do you do?”
And you are now obviously avoiding answering my question: can you think of a reason why sea level rise might be getting faster globally, but not in NZ?
“Shows a statistically significant quadratic acceleration “ yet upthread you claimed we couldn’t fit a polynomial at all
What is it? Does the theory change every hour?
“Welcome to the real world”, one where logic reason and science go out of the window
If the acceleration is quadratic, what is the value of that second order parameter that defines the acceleration?
Let me guess. There isnt any acceleration so we can’t define it.
You misunderstood me. Of course you can fit a polynomial to any dataset. But sea level isn’t defined by a polynomial function – it’s an irregular result of ocean warming, ice melt and land water storage. So fitting a polynomial tells you nothing useful. I don’t even think a quadratic fit (to indicate “acceleration”) is useful.
How about my question: can you think of a reason why sea level rise might be getting faster globally, but not in NZ?
Church and White defined the acceleration in terms of a quadratic and defined the coefficients
The later 2011 (?) paper showed quite a small acceleration
Why doesn’t it match tidal gauges? Probably because it s a different set of inputs
https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/21/scientists-cite-uncertainty-error-model-deficiencies-to-affirm-a-non-detectable-human-climate-influence/
Real Scientists have understood the above since the works of Maxwell, Einstein (1917), Wood, and Feynman etc..
So. nothing to see here.. No ghe. No tide leap either. We found long ago that when GRACE was used to replace the fading JASON, it increased the error greatly. Because it was not designed for that purpose. A new Jason will soon be building up a database. Hopefully with a sane Error margin.
Splicers are worthless, let Soros waste his money. Brett