Hey, Renwick says climate ‘could’ get hotter

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.”

 

 

 

 

116
Leave a Reply

avatar
96 Comment threads
20 Thread replies
5 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
Richard TreadgoldBarry BrillAndyBrett KeaneMack Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Gwan
Guest
Gwan

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… Read more »

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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:

Records from the four main port tide gauges indicate a doubling in the rate of sea-level rise around the New Zealand coastline over the last five to six decades, from an average of around 1 mm/yr earlier last century to nearly 2 mm/yr from 1961 on

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.

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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.

Gwan
Guest
Gwan

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… Read more »

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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.

Simon
Guest
Simon

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.

Gwan
Guest
Gwan

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… Read more »

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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.

Gwan
Guest
Gwan

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… Read more »

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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?

Gwan
Guest
Gwan

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 .… Read more »

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

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

Mack
Guest
Mack

” 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… Read more »

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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:

A3.1 Total GMSL rise for 1902–2015 is 0.16 m (likely range 0.12–0.21 m). The rate of GMSL rise for 2006–2015 of 3.6 mm yr–1 (3.1–4.1 mm yr–1, very likely range), is unprecedented over the last century (high confidence), and about 2.5 times the rate for 1901–1990 of 1.4 mm yr–1 (0.8– 2.0 mm yr–1, very likely range).

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.

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

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… Read more »

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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.

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

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

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

[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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

6 Discussion.An acceleration in the rate of sea level rise has significant implications for all coastal and lowlying areas around the globe. This study did not find statistically significant evidence of a
common acceleration in the rate of sea level rise through the combined analyses using New
Zealand’s long-term sea level records from Auckland, Wellington, Lyttelton and Dunedin.
However, a relative acceleration was identified within Wellington’s annual mean sea level
records. The implications of the results obtained in this study are discussed firstly in this
chapter

[….]

Given the results obtained in this investigation, evidence currently available does not suggest that the rate of absolute sea level rise is increasing over time, nor is there evidence that the
rate of sea level rise has been subject to a significant change in the linear rate of sea level rise
at some point during the recording period.

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

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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’?

Andy
Guest
Andy

Cole did a thesis based on facts. The other conclusions are press releases.

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

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.

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

MOT – first print the actual data you use so we can see what you are discussing. Brett Keane

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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

Records from the four main port tide gauges indicate a doubling in the rate of sea-level rise around the New Zealand coastline over the last five to six decades, from an average of around 1 mm/yr earlier last century to nearly 2 mm/yr from 1961 on (table 7).

Andy
Guest
Andy

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?

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Andy
Guest
Andy

From the same paper

The six new estimates of the relative sea level rise provide a weighted mean estimate of 1.7 ± 0.1 mm yr−1, a result that is completely consistent with the results as calculated from the four long‐term gauge records. Even if Nelson is excluded, the average estimate remains unchanged. In addition and in a global context, this average trend in relative sea level rise is also consistent with the results ofChurch and White [2011], who find a global average linear trend in secular sea level rise of 1.7 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 from 1900–2009 and 1.9 ± 0.4 mm yr−1 since 1961. Importantly, Church and White [2011]specifically note the paucity of Southern Hemisphere gauges, finding less than ten with pre‐1940 records, a number that had increased to about 50 sites by 1960.

The word “acceleration” appears nowhere in that paper

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

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

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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… Read more »

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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!

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

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

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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”.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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.

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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.

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

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

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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.

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

MOT will not bring actual data, because he cannot. Goodbye little troll. Brett

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/30/escape-from-model-land/

Back in the real world of non-reanalysis……. Brett, Applied Scientist

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

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/

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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.

Simon
Guest
Simon

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Andy
Guest
Andy

Climate change is the biggest threat humanity has ever faced, and action is urgent. If we take no action, warming will surge through 1.5C, then 2C, 3C, maybe 4C by 2100. That would lock in widespread drought, heatwaves, crop failures, and multi-metre sea level rise. The damage to the global economy and to human society would be almost incalculable. But, we can avoid the worst of it by taking action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, starting immediately. There is no time to waste on fact-free posturing.

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Some more “non-alarmist” news in this morning’s Stuff: More than 11,000 scientists from around the world have declared a “climate emergency”, warning of “untold suffering” and calling for action ranging from curbing human population to leaving fossil fuels in the ground. The unusual international collaboration, published in BioScience journal, was backed by more than 350 Australian scientists, including 10 current or ex-CSIRO researchers. Signatories hailed from 153 countries. Despite warnings being issued for decades that rising greenhouse gases would disrupt the climate – and a slew of summits and treaties – such emissions have continued to rise with “increasingly damaging effects”. “An immense increase of scale in endeavours to conserve our biosphere is needed to avoid untold suffering due to the climate crisis,” the article said. The signatories also highlighted population, a target often omitted in climate debates. The report noted the number of humans was swelling at the rate of 200,000 people per day, or more than 80 million a year. Populations “must be stabilised – and ideally, gradually reduced”, it said. Strengthening human rights, including making education “a global norm for all, especially girls”, were ways to stem population growth Charlie… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

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”.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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.

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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.

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

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

Simon
Guest
Simon

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/

Barry Brill
Guest
Barry Brill

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Andy
Guest
Andy

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.

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

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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… Read more »

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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.

Richard Treadgold
Admin

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.

Andy
Guest
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

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)

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

[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… Read more »

Richard Treadgold
Admin

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.

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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.

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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”.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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”

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

As I posted a couple of times already, it’s referenced in the MfE guidance (pages 81-82) as Hannah (2016):

Records from the four main port tide gauges indicate a doubling in the rate of sea-level rise around the New Zealand coastline over the last five to six decades, from an average of around 1 mm/yr earlier last century to nearly 2 mm/yr from 1961 on (table 7).
When the pre-1960 datasets are compared with the post-1960 datasets in table 7, the sea level trends at all ports for the two periods are significantly different at a 99 per cent confidence level (Hannah, 2016).

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane
Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

Willem is here.Trolls begone.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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)

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

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….

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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. 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. 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 Why problematic? The global data show the same behaviour (as I linked above). 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) 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… Read more »

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

https://climaterealists.org.nz/node/150
Brett

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”!

Andy
Guest
Andy

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… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

MoT writes

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.

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?

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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.

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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 Records from the four main port tide gauges indicate a doubling in the rate of sea-level rise around the New Zealand coastline over the last five to six decades, from an average of around 1 mm/yr earlier last century to nearly 2 mm/yr from 1961 on (table 7). 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… Read more »

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

So what you’re really saying is no, I made no false claims. Thanks for that.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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?

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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”.

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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.

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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?

Barry Brill
Guest
Barry Brill

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.

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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?

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Barry Brill
Guest
Barry Brill

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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?

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

The reasons for the 1960 split are in the guidance (page 80): – First, it generally follows the analysis of global data sets of Church and White (2011), discussed earlier, thereby allowing direct comparison with their results. – Secondly, it allows the linear trend determined for the first part of the 20th century to be compared with the trend over the last five-and-a-half decades (which almost splits the records in half, as shown in table 7). If a significant change in trend has occurred in recent decades, the individual data sets are approaching a length that should enable this change in trend to be determined with some confidence, being mindful of the cautions raised in Douglas (2001) for extracting trends from records less than 60 years in length (because of the masking effect of climate variability). Seems reasonable to me, but it would be interesting to see whether the result changes with other times. Why don’t you do it? [Andy] – from what I can see, linear regression has been used without the filtering described above. Is there any justification for this? I don’t think that’s right. The guidance talks about “updates” of… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Why are you so unwilling to accept this result? It doesn’t contradict the earlier one (that there was no statistically significant acceleration

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.

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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. 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. If you can’t present a model or formula for the SLR, then the result is useless from both a scientific and policy perspective. Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean a model or formula for past SLR? It doesn’t… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

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?

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

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

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

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.

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane
Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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?

Andy
Guest
Andy

“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.

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

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?

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

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

Post Navigation