Tuesday, August 04, 2015

1 Samuel 17:46, Two Miracles and a Trampoline

Rud Istvan, playing the arrogant physicist par excellance at Curry's Climate Stand and DotEarth sent his "devastating critique" on the new Hansen, et al paper off to Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions stepping right into Dsquared's parlor on the nature of "devastating critiques"

Istvan's comment at ACPD denigrates both the Hansen et al paper and David Archer's requested review on the grounds of there being no evidence for abrupt sea level rise in the Eemian, but rather than a dry recitation of the gist, allow Eli to simply quote Istvan
Archer’s comment shows how lax the climate science community has become about it’s ’Facts’. Archer, a Hansen paper reviewer, says the Eemian showed abrupt SLR the way Hansen models for the Holocene with CAGW, which gives the paper strong support. And then goes on about further support from WAIS observations such as Hansen co-author Rignot’s recent findings.  
Archer is sadly and quite provably mistaken on both counts. 
In particular Istvan does the rant on about a paper by Michal O'Leary, et al on "Ice sheet collapse following a prolonged period ofstable sea level during the last interglacial"
The two papers finding abrupt Eemian SLR are both geologically flawed. The Australian (O’Leary et.al.) paper that Archer refers to and which Hansen discusses extensively is so flawed it comprises a fairly clear case of academic misconduct. The flaws and the probable misconduct in the misrepresentation of its figure 3 are exposed in illustrated detail with references in essay By Land or By Sea in ebook Blowing Smoke. Incorporated herein by reference 
Along the Western Australian coast O'Leary, et al measure a sudden (like 100 yrs or less) ~5 m sea level rise roughly 118 kYr ago based on coral deposits.  They attribute this to a collapse of the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet.  The issue of rapid Eemian rise is of continuing interest not only for Hansen et al. but, for example, Pollard, deConto and Alley who model sea level rises of 5 m in 100 years from disappearance of Antarctic ice shelves alone.  However, as the stormy night in Scotland, this is not what interests us

Some, not Eli to be sure, might ask the bunnies to invest $7.99 in Rud's self published book but he has provided the argument on a certain blog.  After significant heavy breathing Istvan's Argument (IA below) is that tectonic activity could have pushed the land down to account for the apparent rise.  Indeed there was one location where this appeared to have happened, although nothing like the rapid sea level rise of 5 m that O'Leary found, and a considerable part of the O'Leary paper is spent dealing with this issue
The observed difference in the elevation of the lower shore platform compared with the upper marine units along the Western Australia coast has been variously attributed to localized tectonic uplift (13–15), isostatic deformation(16), or changes in ice volume (17,18) . We have demonstrated, based on the near-uniform elevation of the lower palaeo MSL datum, that there seems to have been minimal tectonic uplift or subsidence along the Western Australia coast since the last interglacial (Cape Cuvier being an exception). Although an early MIS 5e age [130 -115 kYr ago - ER] for the upper marine units would be indicative of a peak early isostatic highstand (plus a component of ESL rise), a late MIS 5e age can be indicative only of a eustatic jump in sea level. Therefore determining the age of the higher marine MIS 5e units relative to the age of the lower shore platform is critical to our understanding of sea-level variability and ice sheet sensitivity during MIS 5e.
So what is the shorter IA?
A single New Madrid like ‘event’ in the vicinity sometime between then and now could suffice
Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think that this would leave some trace in the geological record, but wait, it is not that alone, as Richard Telford contemporaneously pointed out at Quantpaleo
The authors write that the higher late last-interglacial shoreline is found across the southwest coast, but it is best represented along the 150-km-long Miocene Quobba Ridge, and it is here that all their dated corals are from. Istvar argues that an intra-plate earthquake analogous to the the 1811 New Madrid event could have displaced the shoreline on the Quobba Ridge. Istvar forgets the obvious. Firstly, this shoreline can be found across the region, not just in this one area. Secondly, if we invoke a large earthquake to lower the land at Quobba Ridge in the middle of 5e by 6m, this will disrupt the early 5e shoreline by 6m. As this shoreline is now approximately level, we need to invoke a second earthquake after stage 5e to raise the land back up again by 6m. 
What is Western Australia, a giant trampoline?
and in same vein at the last (and unanswered) comment at Climate Etc.
If you argue that tectonic activity at 119ka BP displaced the land by 6m, you need a second bout of tectonic activity after stage 5e to raise the land again so that the early stage 5e shoreline is ~flat. 
One massive intra-plate tectonic event is unlikely (it would need to be much larger than the New Madrid event). To have a second event that reverses the effects of the first event is implausible. The first event would have release all the stress, how could stress with the opposite sense have accumulated (and not overshot)?


Everett F Sargent said...


"Along the Western Australian coast O'Leary, et al measure a sudden (like 100 yrs or less) ~5 m sea level rise roughly 118 kYr ago based on coral deposits."


So could you please point me to the exact place (main text PDF, text SOM PDF and/or SOM xlxs file) where the above statement is true (an exact quote would be fine).

I'm sort of expecting error bars (spatial (elevation in meters) and temporal (time in years) for the individual data points as well as latitude and longitude coordinates from the sampling site(s) used in the study.

Because, if I include just the temporal error bars (And what's with the 2*STDEV of n=2 data points anyways?) in the xlsx SOM, I'm getting 10m SLR in -500 years time (that's MINUS 500 YEARS TIME).

I don't see any elevation error bars, they must use some rather magical WABAC technologies to know the elevations to 10 cm as they were +100KYA (I'll just assume all location elevations were tied together with some form of kinematic GPS, which at least tells us what the elevations are circa 2nd/3rd millenium AD). I also don't see any actual latitude/longitude either, just things like Region, Location, Sample ID, Species.

Sorry for being so sardonic or snarky or fake septic or whatever words are thrown my way.

TIA :(

Mal Adapted said...

EFS: "So could you please point me to the exact place (main text PDF, text SOM PDF and/or SOM xlxs file) where the above statement is true (an exact quote would be fine)."

Why would you expect an exact quote? Eli, as a trained scientist, is able to read the entire paper (DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1890) for comprehension, and summarize the author's findings. Hell, I dropped out my PhD program after two years (I decided I didn't want to work that hard and found an easier way to make a living), but even I had no trouble finding the relevant numbers.

First, under A late MIS 5e rise in sea level, we read:
"thus these data strongly support a rapid ∼6 m rise (9.1 m − 3.4 m = 5.7 m) in local sea level along the coast of Western Australia in the later part of MIS 5e (Fig. 3)."

Then, under Implications for ice sheet stabilty, we find:
"U-series dating constrains the timing of this peak MIS 5e sea-level event to 118.1±1.4 kyr ago,"


Everett F Sargent said...

Mal Adapted,

I'm quite sure you have a brain. After that basic fact, well ...

--> ±1.4 <-- You do see that part?

"Figure 3 | Relative sea-level curve for Western Australia. A geomorphically defined palaeoMSL datum of +2.5 m 120 kyr ago (Fig. 1c) anchors a predicted relative sea-level curve at Red Bluff, which includes a GIA signal based on the test calculation (see Methods) plus the following ESL history: ESL jumps from 0 to 3.4 m between 127.5 kyr and 127 kyr ago and remains at this level until 120 kyr ago; and 120 kyr ago, ESL jumps ∼6 m over 1 kyr"

--> over 1 kyr <-- You do see that part?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or some such.

You should also look into their xlsx spreed sheet, what I found there actually surprised me (like say NOT rounding the numbers down from 1 mm of elevation data to carrying 15-digits of precision in the dates and associated error bars, I mean whatever, but they did put this into the public domain).

If someone is hanging their hat on this one study and essentially one data point ... I'm almost speechless.

Everett F Sargent said...

So, to summarize from Figure 3:

(3.4 - 0) / (127.5 - 127.0) = 0.68 meters per century

(6) / (1) = 0.6 meters per century

Further to the point, AFAIK not a single rate calculation is made anywhere in either the main paper the PDF SOM or the SOM xlsx spreed sheet. One might even think that something remotely like that would appear in the abstract even. D'oh!

IMHO, whoever (Hansen?) is doing so should be spanked really hard.

Aaron said...

Several places in the geological record suggest sea level rise at rates that are outside of the modern human experience, and are thereby considered implausible by some.

Worse, such rapid SLR was presumably driven by very sedate orbital progressions. This would imply that our more rapid changes in CO2 forcing would drive even more rapid SLR events. How is this possible?

Take a pristine piece of ice out of the freezer, and many of its properties can be described by differential equations. Drop the ice into water, and it will fracture, and suddenly the differential equations no longer apply to the behavior of the ice, even though it was only a thin layer of ice at the surface that actually warmed.

Sudden warming changes ice. Fractures affect ice's structural properties such as shear strength. The integrity of ice sheets depend on the structural properties of "pristine" ice. This was the ice of the folks that wrote the textbooks. Now, we have ice that is being suddenly warmed.

We can expect this ice to behave in ways that are outside of the behaviours in the geological record, and far, far outside of the human experience with ice sheets and glaciers.

No single paper is long enough to lay out the full range of what happens to ice as it warms under stress, and anything less would hit a wall of incredulity. I look at something like https://issm.jpl.nasa.gov/documentation/damage/ and all the properties of ice are assumed to be continous. It is not a model of the ice, it is fudging observations to meet expectations. It does not tell us how the ice is likely to behave (in 5 years) under warmer conditions. I do not trust any ice model that does not explicitly state the temperature profile of the ice structure being modeled and the strength of ice under various kinds of stresses at those temperatures.

Thus, Hansen et al's estimates of SLR are under attack from those who only believe what they have actually seen, and those who only believe the differential equations in their computers. I believe that ice is interesting stuff, and Hansen et al's estimates of sea level rise are a bit low, and their estimate of time horizons to SLR events is a bit long.

The question not how much heat is required to melt the ice, but how much energy added to the ice sheets will cause the ice sheets to fail mechanically, and fall into the sea. Hansen et al still talk in terms of "melt" and may therefore actually be off by orders of magnitude.

Kevin O'Neill said...

EFS writes: "I don't see any elevation error bars, they must use some rather magical WABAC technologies to know the elevations to 10 cm as they were +100KYA "

I've never really looked into it - but Lorscheid's presentation here seems to indicate +/- 5cm real-time corrections for paleo sea levels.


Everett F Sargent said...

So, hmm, err, Aaron,

You would fall into the 0-year doubling category?

So in CMIP6 there will be process based ice sheet models, these will be similar to the sea ice models, that is, modelled as a continuum. At rather poor resolution, so poor in fact, that no meaningful stress calculations could ever be made.

But I do like this part of your words only commentary ...

"Thus, Hansen et al's estimates of SLR are under attack from those who only believe what they have actually seen ..."

I'm pretty sure no one has actually seen SLR in the literal sense, like, you know, standing at the shoreline watching SLR over several decades. Somehow, don't ask me how, but somehow actual eyeballs do not make for an accurate measurement system.

This part is interesting too ...

"Hansen et al still talk in terms of "melt" and may therefore actually be off by orders of magnitude."

So "... be off by orders of magnitude." suggests to me at least two orders of magnitude, so instead of 5m by 2100AD, you are suggesting 500m by 2100AD, because we only have about 66m of SLE in land ice. D'oh! D'oh! D'oh! (Hansen doubled down, or did he triple down, in which case I'd better quadruple down) D'oh!

E. Swanson said...

A few years ago, I looked at some information about Eemian sea-level high stands. There are indications of this at other locations than Australia. For example, consider this report:

Vezina, et al, "Sea-Level Highstands Over the Last 500,000 Years: Evidence from the Ironshore Formation on Grand Cayman, British West Indies", Journal of Sedimentary Research, Section B: Stratigraphy and Global Studies Vol. 69 (1999), No. 2. (March), Pages 317-327

I also found reference to relic benches from previous SL high stands located along the coast of the SE USA, generally found from Florida thru the Carolinas. Sorry, no quick reference on that one...

BBD said...


You've got ever-increasing contributions from the GrIS, the WAIS and in due course, sectors of the EAIS (eg via Totten Glacier). Multi-metre SLR seems virtually inevitable *already* with an escalating rate of rise spanning several centuries. It will be catastrophic - that is the correct term - for humanity.

All this fucking nit-picking and crypto-denial is deeply, painfully stupid.

Everett F Sargent said...


Yes, of course multimeter, meaning at least 5 meters or more (2015.0AD baseline), SLR will occur, but not in the 21th century. 22th century is a virtual certainty.

Some of us sort of like really solid numbers though.

And not just 10-13 years of SMB data extrapolated 6.5X-8.5X into the future using an exponential fit that has absolutely no physical/theoretical basis and no objective criteria for that type of purely arbitrary and capricious curve fitting methodology. Weak. Lame.

Someone is getting very old, that someone has gone emeritus, that someone so desperately wants humanity to do something before they die, that someone will surely die very unhappily at what humanity has, and has not, done. Those are the basic cold hard facts that I understand them.


BBD said...


Yes, of course multimeter, meaning at least 5 meters or more (2015.0AD baseline), SLR will occur, but not in the 21th century. 22th century is a virtual certainty.

Even 1m by the end of the century would be disastrous. The fact that it is unstoppable and just goes on and on piling up the metres for centuries more is appalling.

Some of us sort of like really solid numbers though.

We aren't going to get them but that is not a rational basis for refusing to reason by inference from what is known.

Mal Adapted said...

I'm quite sure you have a brain. After that basic fact, well ...

_±1.4_ You do see that part?"

Everett, the authors of the paper we're discussing asserted that "U-series dating constrains the timing of this peak MIS 5e sea-level event to 118.1 ±1.4 kyr ago"

Do you see that "118.1" part? It means the authors are claiming they're confident of their dating of the MIS 5e sea-level event to within 0.1 kiloyears. That's one hundred years. '+/- 1.4 kyr' means they claim the event might have taken place as early as 119.5 kyrs ago and as late as 117.7 kyrs ago.

The authors' confidence in their dating of the event may be unwarranted, but Eli merely reported their claim.

So there, schmott guy ;^)!

Everett F Sargent said...

Mal Adapted,

That number is a SINGLE HIGHSTAND VALUE, also if you know anything about statistics (which I seriously doubt), one knows that the central estimate is NOT the actual cast in stone value, it could actually be higher or lower, that's why they have +/- 1400 Years (two sigma). D'oh!

To compute a rate, last time I checked, you need at least two values. Double D'oh! Figure 3 shows at most either two or three values with associated temporal error bars. Also, since the authors did do GIA corrections, I'd swag two sigma error bars for height uncertainty closer to one meter than 0.1 meters.

So let me repeat what I said above, that is, nowhere in that paper do the authors state any kind of rate, just elevations with associated (two sigma) temporal error bars.

So I ask you or Eli or Hansen once again, where do the authors of that particular paper ever claim a RATE of five meters in 100 years?

PS: Must move on.

I'm now into another part of the absurd Hansen15 paper, Section 2.2 Superstorm nonsense (Bahamas, highstand (the higher the better from a depth limiting POV) water waves, energy, power, forces, boulder drag coefficient, diffraction, refraction, nearshore bathymetry, limiting wave heights, current design deep water wave heights (for, you know, those nasty fossil fueled offshore platforms) in the GOM of 102 feet (which the API updated AFTER Rita and Katrina from the low 90's). Knowledge is power. I can claim SME status, specifically to long period waves and nearshore coastal processes. Hansen is such a n00b.

cRR Kampen said...

Oh, look, just another climate revisionist. Just another thug.
Just another couple dozen extra deaths thru earth's raging heatwaves of the moment during his writing of that post and thanks to that post.

Everett F Sargent said...

Deltoid Zombie,


No one died in your post. Please explain.

BBD said...


Hansen is such a n00b.

Hansen et al. may be mistaken in its interpretation of the evidence for superstorms but Hansen is an eminent scientist with a large body of important work to his name.

The sneering is inappropriate and damages your credibility far more than Hansen's.

Hansen15 is a discussion paper. So why not discuss it, in a civil and constructive tone? Otherwise, people will conclude that you are just another denialist nutter and stop paying attention to what you write.

Everett F Sargent said...


Yes my credibility is far more damaged than Hansen's (at least online, offline I believe the coastal professionals that really know me, would still deeply respect my particular POV, specifically with respect to all things related to sea level rise, certainly more so than James Houston (Houston & Dean (2012)).

I should not have called Hansen a ...., all that I can say that I am truly sorry.

BBD said...


I believe the coastal professionals that really know me, would still deeply respect my particular POV, specifically with respect to all things related to sea level rise

It's difficult to be clear what your position is, but I get the impression that you greatly under-estimate the growth in contribution to SLR from ice-sheet melt later this century and for centuries to come. From where I stand, that is either naive or denialism.

cRR Kampen said...

Well Sargent, I saved 100s of k's of lives by posting a realist's take on climate change. Because some people, even some with voting rights, moreover some with title and some who are policy makers, got the message of urgency, giving anticipation and mitigation that tiny extra time and chance to save that mass of lifes per now and in the future.

You, however, destroy some of this work with your climate revisionism, if it even only delays anticipation/mitigation by a couple of hours during which people are dying like flies. As we speak, really.

Total during only that heat wave for Benelux, Germany, UK between 2000 and 3000.
Not counting what is going on since in Spain, France, Central Europe, Italy and the Balkan countries but expect a number like 20 or 30k.
Not counting of course the huge heat dome over the Middle East, or over the western part of North-America.

Now, it's gonna happen in wintertime too. This was already a freak: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2009_Argentine_winter_heat_wave . No, not a freak, just the new normal: this one will be forgotten by the end of coming weekend.

Climate revisionism is criminal and murderous.

cRR Kampen said...

Well, I may not have written that rant, had I read Sargent's 5:02 post. Don't take mine personally then, please.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Sargent, your scientific credibility is diminshed and damaged among working scientists when you claim online to speak for all 'coastal professionals', and when you infer that all coastal professionals have the final say on any potential catastrophic sea level rises in the present Anthropocene geological period.

Some scientists consider a much larger suite of interdisciplinary evidence than thou.

Everett F Sargent said...

Well, in one regard, I'm still stuck on Eli's bogus claim of 5 meter SLR in a century (specifically with regards to the late Eemiam high stands and flaky interpretations thereof).

After reading the relevant sections of Hansen15 (citations and text with respect to O'Leary13) it becomes rather obvious that ...

(1) O'Leary13 themselves make no claims as to RATES during the late Eamean high stands.
(2) Hansen15 make no claims as to RATES during the late Eamean high stands (at least, specifically in regards to O'Leary13).
(I'd quote the relevant sections, however, on top of being called a DENIER (which I sort of kind of really like being called), I'd also be called out for quoting minimg out of context, or some such, so please, just read section 2 in it's entirety).

So, when someone, using words like "O'Leary, et al measure a sudden (like 100 yrs or less) ~5 m sea level rise" we, in fact, can plainly see (or infer) a RATE of change, we have a delta y "~5m sea level rise" and a delta x "(like 100 yrs OR LESS)" something that neither paper claims (Hansen15 goes to reasonable lengths to highlight the GIA and temporal uncertainties even).

Somehow, don't ask me how, but I have absolutely no reason to believe Eli would ever cross out --> ((like 100 yrs or less) <--

As to the superstorm nonsense (super high super long period waves travelling thousands of kilometers (long travelled swell, where have I spent like a decade of my life studying that one (POLA/POLB)), that one is just way too easy to shoot down, the 1st day of any graduate water waves course would discuss the depth limiting criteria for water waves (this is rather important from a design perspective). During the late Eamean the water levels were 6-9 meters ABOVE current levels, if the water waves were depth limited (if they were not depth limited, then the whole argument is a non sequitur, simply because we design for 30 meter wave heights in deep water using today's wave height climatology from today's storms), then they were at least 6-9 meters higher than depth limited wave heights today. Wave power is the square of wave height, wave power is a linear function of wave period (longer period waves means more power). Orientation of the chevrons, you say? Wave refraction would be my immediate answer (waves will bend towards the shore parallel direction, in depth limited conditions (waves "see" the bottom). Caveats? One needs to do the appropriate numerical (and less so today, laboratory modelling) of the nearshore processes as was recently done by the USACE ERDC for NAD (North Atlantic Division, e. g. Sandy, NYC, et. al.). We've been doing this stuff for several decades (at least 50 years) now. Pretty plain cut and dried stuff, in fact.

BBD said...

Hansen et al. (2015):

Although climate forcings were weak and changed slowly during the Eemian, there were probably instances in the Eemian with sea level change of the order of 1m century-1 (Rohling et al., 2008; W. Thompson et al., 2011; Blanchon et al., 2009).


O’Leary et al. (2013) provide a new perspective on Eemian sea level change using over 100 well-dated U-series coral reefs at 28 sites along the 1400 km west coast of Australia and incorporating GIA corrections on regional sea level. In agreement with Hearty et al. (2007), their analyses suggest that sea level was relatively stable at 3–4m in most of the Eemian, followed by a rapid (<1000 yr) late-Eemian sea level rise to about +9 m. U-series dating of the corals has the sea level rise begin at 119 ky b2k and peak sea level at 118.1 +/- 1.4 ky b2k.

BBD said...

From Hansen 15 cont...

Blanchon et al. (2009) used a sequence of coral reef crests from northeast Yucatan peninsula, Mexico, to investigate sea level change with a higher temporal precision than possible with U-series dating alone. They used coral reef “back-stepping”, i.e., the fact that the location of coral reef building moves shoreward as sea level rises, to infer sea level change. They found that in the latter half of the Eemian there was a point at which sea level jumped by 2–3m within an “ecological” period, i.e., within several decades. From 5 U-series dating they estimated that this period of rapid sea level rise
occurred at about 121 ky b2k.

Kevin O'Neill said...

EFS: The chevrons studied by Hearty all point in the same compass direction regardless the orientation of the shoreline.

MIS 5e had maximum sea levels in the 6-9m range, but it was not a constant increase - it was rise, fall, rise. The maximum was in the 2nd rise and typically given as 4m above the initial increase. The fall between the two is typically stated as equivalent to present sea levels. So over this relatively short period we had +4m, -4m, +8m of sea level change.

Yes, there are uncertainties. They are not our friend. Also, remember that in many of these dates, the absolute uncertainties are much, much larger than the relative uncertainties. I.e., we look at two strata of rock and date them to 120kya +/- 2kya. We may *also* know that strata 1 is 10 years older than strata 2. The relative uncertainties are often independent of the absolute uncertainties.

Hansen et al have now responded to the Revkin comment vis a vis the Bourgeois & Weiss paper and the Mylroie paper. I am not competent to judge whether their response is persuasive.

Everett F Sargent said...


I have NO scientific credibility. Happy now?

Here's the basic problem though (as I see it and have commented on in a rather sardonic way in the past (Eli might even remember)).

We all (people who design and build stuff) are waiting on you all (planners policymakers politicians people) to tell us all what to do. At least the we all that is the USACE (we request stuff (funding as per our mission statement) as mandated by Congress and the POTUS, Congress and the POTUS throw us chump change, or some such). Wind farms? I'm there. Solar farms? I'm there. 100% renewables (not really likely but WTF)? I'm there. EV's? I'm there. Fencing off Montana and extermination of any homo sapien who stays or enters? I'm there (I've always wanted to do that, fence off a very large area of nature from humanity in perpetuity).

If you all can't make up your own damn minds, we all (people who do stuff in the coastal zone (and I don't mean real estate developers)) get stuck with adaptation (the New Jerseyfication of the high density high economic coastline, which pretty much just kicks the proverbial can 10-100 years down the timeline). Poor people are rather stuck because no money means move or die.

So, as I see it, you all have a problem, part of that problem is people like Hansen who make up stuff, like 5-year doubling time which gets us to 5m SLR by 2050AD (35 years from now) or 10-year doubling time (84 years from now). Do I really need to quote the IPCC AR5 WG1 take away on Hansen's "heuristic" approach to 5m SLR by 2100AD nonsense? Sometimes (actually 100% of the time) I do wonder about the illiterati of the world. IMHO, grossly overstating your case is not much different from grossly understating your case. Now some certain groups of illiterati (call them libertarians or conservatives or Republicans or Willard Anthony Watts, et. al.) sort of "push back" and IMHO that is not a good thing. But then again there you have Hansen and the whole MSM mashup (I mean really, explicitly targeting Paris COP21 as Hansen is on record as saying, or some such, OMFG, world renowned climate scientist gives, hands over, surrenders to, the illiterati all of his climate science "ammo"). IMHO a really "good" smooth move Exlax. In one smooth move, Hansen has just pushed back the the proverbial timeline prior to circa 1988 (sans GHG emissions, sans future BAU GHG emissions).

Long story short? I'm not the problem, you all are the problem.

Everett F Sargent said...

Kevin O'Neill,

RE: Chevrons. Wind induced?

IMHO a really interesting link.

Don't even know anything about this chevron stuff (the boulders are way too easy to disprove though). However (there's always a however), not seeing classic overwash fans in the Bahamas during the Eamian (geologically speaking) and not explicitly knowing the "lay of the land" during the Eamian (meaning that I myself don't know the in situ topography, others certainly might and I'd defer to their knowledge and expertise), storm surges push up much "stranded sand" the prevailing winds take over and voila chevrons all oriented in the same general direction? Or some such. BS, conjecture or hypothesis, take your pick.

Everett F Sargent said...

Kevin O'Neill,

Small addendum to the chevrons and long period waves. We do pretty much understand the bathymetry and nearshore bathymetric features, then and now.

Having studied long period water waves for w-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-y too long, we do know a few things with almost absolute certainty. Long travelled swell (six and glassy) is, relatively speaking, low amplitude with respect to locally generated wind waves (I'm thinking now of the Pacific Ocean where peak periods in excess of 20 seconds have been seen and recorded, Hawaii specifically). Long period swell moves faster than shorter period waves (that's why surfers go out before hurricanes, the longer period wind waves travel the fastest, are somewhat less chaotic, etceteras).

Problem is, that the longer the period the sooner the wave "sees" the bottom and vectors towards or perpendicular to the underlying bathymetry. The waves refract sooner. If the refraction focuses the waves grow, if the bathymetry get's shallower the waves grow.

Now, we also need to talk about the incident wave direction(s), Hansen15 conjecture all superstorms coming from the exact same deepwater direction, or some such (actually the southern swell in the Pacific Ocean is well tracked by surfing interests, one to two weeks in advance even, but that rather long low amplitude swell needs a big push from the nearshore bathymetry).

So here's the basic problem with the same direction conjecture, or whatever ill informed conjecture the paper is making, the nearshore bathymetry totally governs the local shoreline wave direction, the longer the wave period the sooner that bathymetry kicks in.

Since the nearshore bathymetry is not all oriented in the generally same direction/contours throughout the Bahamas, it's a virtual certainty that all chevrons would not be oriented in the same direction, simply because we do not have uniform incident bathymetry.

Waves can certainly put "sand" above the shoreline, asking or assuming that the waves put the sand in the same direction is the real problem given the locally known differences in bathymetry. There is clearly another mechanism, other than water waves, at work here.

BBD said...


So, as I see it, you all have a problem, part of that problem is people like Hansen who make up stuff, like 5-year doubling time which gets us to 5m SLR by 2050AD (35 years from now) or 10-year doubling time (84 years from now).

This seems to me to misrepresent H15 but it is a long paper and I may well have missed the section that you are thinking of here. Could you point me to the exact text you are referring to?

Everett F Sargent said...


I'm misrepresenting what's in H15 just like your typical denier.

So, for example, I'm actually OK with 10-year doubling as a lower bound scenario (perhaps too unconservative, that's the one that get's you to 5m SLR by ~2100AD), 20-year doubling time is OK as an upper bound scenario (perhaps to conservative).

It's the ad hoc assumption of exponential behavior used for SLR and shown in Figure 8. I've already sort of bashed the 5-year doubling time at Tamino's (the numbers I'm quoting are from my own "reverse engineering" of that particular figure (but they are off the top of my head from my spreadsheet, need to check, OK checked 5-year 5m SLR is in 2062.2AD, so 47 years, not 35 years, my bad, 2099.4AD for 10 year doubling) which I can pretty much match rather precisely).

If we do see anything like a 5-year doubling in the next few years (which would have to literally smack everyone, including yours truly, upside the head), it's already too late, that train has already left the station, so to speak. So I'd expect Deniersville to jump on Hansen's "prediction" ASAP in say 2020AD, by 2030AD it's at 50.5 mm cumulative (50.5 mm / 15 years = 3.37 mm/yr, so if current SMB is already making 100% contribution to CU GMSL rate from 1992-2015 we won't notice, if 1990's SMB made only a very minor contribution then we would see say 6.7 mm/yr in 2030AD, that we all would notice, but again, that train has already left the station, so to speak).

Mal Adapted said...

Everett: "PS: Must move on."

Please do.

Anonymous said...

We all and you all?

All I see is you here.

BBD said...


As I thought, you *are* huffing and puffing and misrepresenting H15. Timothy Chase at Tamino nailed you for it so there's no point in doing it all again here.

As I said, you need to drop the animus against Hansen or you will be taken for another denialist clown.

Everett F Sargent said...


You were the one with the "play dumb" question above.

And I ended my conversation over at Tamino's (after stating my POV).

Now go back to the top of this thread and reread my very 1st post.

There would have be zere comments from me on this thread sans Eli's one sentence (the rest of his post I'd already seen elsewhere prior to his post)

I did actually learn something though, chevrons, and I most certainly learned about that subject matter, not directly from H15 and H15 references, but elsewhere, in other relevant peer reviewed literature, that's for sure.

I actually didn't learn anything from H15 other than it was/is an interesting thought experiment.

IMHO, Hansen created his own animus with respect to his personal POV on SLR and projection thereof in the peer reviewed literature. As per the IPCC AR5 WG1 one paragraph flyby (Chapter 13 pp. 1185-6 ...

"The fourth approach is concerned particularly with the contribution from ice-sheet dynamical change, for which it considers kinematic limits. Pfeffer et al. (2008) argued that scenarios of GMSL rise exceeding 2 m by 2100 are physically untenable, ruling out, for example, the heuristic argument of Hansen et al. (2007) giving 5 m by 2100. Pfeffer et al. (2008) constructed scenarios of 0.8 m and 2.0 m, and Katsman et al. (2011) of 1.15 m, for GMSL rise by 2100, including ice-sheet rapid dynamical acceleration. Although these authors considered their scenarios to be physically possible, they are unable to quantify their likelihood, because the probability of the assumptions on which they depend cannot be estimated from observations of the response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to climate change or variability on century time scales. These scenarios involve contributions of ~0.5 m from Antarctica. This is much greater than any process-based projections of dynamical ice-sheet change (Section, and would require either a sustained high increase in outflow in all marine-based sectors or the localized collapse of the ice sheet in the Amundsen Sea sector (Little et al., 2013a)."

Note to self "Hansen et al. (2007)" above should be "Hansen et al. (2011)" and vice versa on page 1162 " Hansen et al., 2011" should be " Hansen et al., 2007" (and AFAIK this correction is not in the current errata).

Climate science can be such a tool.

And I really do appreciate Eli and Tamino for putting up with me and my nonsense on their respective blogs.

That is all.

BBD said...


First, you did indeed misrepresent H15 and then trolled off the back of that misrepresentation, both here and at Tamino's.

Second, you seem oblivious to the fact that H15 was written not by J. Hansen alone, but also by some of the world's top glaciologists who clearly do not share the IPCC's excessively conservative view.

Third, let's instead return to my original comment, which I am obviously going to have to repeat because your reflexive (and tiresome) contrarianism is getting in the way of your reasoning process:

You've got ever-increasing contributions from the GrIS, the WAIS and in due course, sectors of the EAIS (eg via Totten Glacier). Multi-metre SLR seems virtually inevitable *already* with an escalating rate of rise spanning several centuries. It will be catastrophic - that is the correct term - for humanity.

All this fucking nit-picking and crypto-denial is deeply, painfully stupid.

Get that, Everett? Or do I need to repeat it again?

Everett F Sargent said...


Simple answer.

Care to float some actual numbers. Your words or H15 words or H15's ad hoc assumptions are rather meaningless at this point.

Say like actual SMB numbers, circa the latest data release even (Tamino has a dataset, I asked where could I get that dataset elsewhere's on the internets, no reply).

I would also be looking for any estimates (again in numerical format with associated error estimates) of SMB prior to the GRACE era.

"Get that, Everett? Or do I need to repeat it again?"

I've called your type "Deltiod Zombies" for a reason (the infantile infinite banter, that you yourself appear not to see, this type of behavior in a single word is rather, REMARKABLE), you talk the talk but you never seem to walk the walk.

As to your apparent puzzlement aboot whatever it is you think my stance is on SLR, climate change, etceteras, here, let me help you by reinforcing your mindset/biases, I'm a DENIER, I live/work/eat/sleep in DENIERSVILLE.

I need numbers (meaning a time series of numbers).

Until then, end of discussion (at my end, see how that works, you talk to space, space ignores you).

BBD said...

I linked to Timothy Chase's response to you at Tamino's for a reason, which I stated at the time was to avoid repetition here.

But in classic troll fashion, you are trying to start the whole tedious bollocks up again on another blog. Not happening. You hyperfocus on the 5yr doubling and there is no justification in the text of H15 for doing so. Misrepresentation for rhetorical purposes. End of.

Why not go and irritate someone else now?

BBD said...

I've called your type "Deltiod Zombies" for a reason (the infantile infinite banter, that you yourself appear not to see

Read the words, Everett. You've had then twice now and that should be enough.

Say like actual SMB numbers, circa the latest data release even (Tamino has a dataset, I asked where could I get that dataset elsewhere's on the internets, no reply).

I would also be looking for any estimates (again in numerical format with associated error estimates) of SMB prior to the GRACE era.

The non-linearity arises from the action of feedbacks which are for the most part not yet engaged, so what you are doing will provide the answer you like for the wrong reasons. And I think you are well aware of this.

Everett F Sargent said...


This is actually rather fun, it does have a certain level of entertainment value.

"Why not go and irritate someone else now?"

Why ask why? Deltoid Zombies always reply.

"so what you are doing will provide the answer you like"

I don't think so. Someone else has made an ad hoc assumption, for ALL SLR scenarios. Over at Tomino's I 1st remarked then provided two links to Hansen's (see my last post there, like I said previously, I had my say, I left the building, so to speak) rather very interesting (Curryspeak) exponential "curve fitting" analysis.

An ad hoc exponential assumption, no less. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Or some such.

So, in keeping with the scientific principle of independent conformation, I too would like to test the ad hoc exponential assumption using pure "curve fitting" techniques, or some such.

Now, I do know some things aboot an exponential fit, so for example, moving the the data up/down the y-axis (please remember we do not have an absolute definition or reference point datum for the start of the SMB contributions), what is the R^2 relationship versus y-axis offset, is it robust (narrow peaked) or shallow (broad peaked), if it's broad peaked then game over.

This informs me about one aspect of the ad hoc exponential "curve fitting" assumption.

I also know another aspect of an exponential fit, its asymptotic behavior (integration to minus infinity), perhaps not the best metric, but I do get 7.2 mm, 14.4 mm and 28.8 mm for 5, 10 and 20 year doubling times in terms of SLE. So I ask myself, is this useful information on its own, or do I need to invoke a SLE offset (of some form), and compare those numbers to what is(are) the best estimate(s) for total SMB to date.

Call it what you will, but I work with numbers, it helps me to better understand things, it is my preferred method of learning (other than the obvious peer reviewed literature, textbooks, personal knowledge and experiences, etceteras).

BBD said...

This is actually rather fun, it does have a certain level of entertainment value.

That's because you are trolling.

Everett F Sargent said...


The question you need to ask yourself is this ...

Is trolling in the eye of the beholder?

From this end my answer would be ...

That would appear to be the case.

BBD said...


And you have submitted a formal comment on H15 as part of the open review process?

Thought not. Now why would that be?

Everett F Sargent said...


Hopefully yes, a reply is in the works.

I will push the time limit to the very end though.

It's a damn shame that Watts had to screw the proverbial pooch though by posting a direct link to the discussion/comments page though. Most of that stuff is comic gold (e. g. Archer's).

I'm in the process of networking with the coastal community already (just got off the phone prior to reading your latest post).

Thanks for the motivation and participation.

You've been trolled.

Kevin O'Neill said...

EFS: your comment at Tamino's re: Hansen et al was a masterpiece of not having actually read the paper. Timothy Chase made that abundantly clear.

Where you made shit up out of your ass, he simply had to quote the paper to show how wrong you were. First rule of thumb when you find yourself in a deep hole: QUIT DIGGING!

EliRabett said...

1 Samuel 17:46

Everett F Sargent said...

Kevin O'Neill,

I'm actually quite happy to keep digging.


Never read the Bible. But I hear that no two people have interpreted it's passages in the exact same way for some reason.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to give your version of said passage, in standard Elispeak.

Those Holocene chevrons are rather remarkable though, they are quite literally everywhere, I didn't know that we had superstorms in the Holocene, that were quite similar to those superstorms recorded in the geological record of the Eemian.

Imagine that, all those global Holocene chevrons, at 6-9 meters below Eemian sea level high stands, were apparently generated by superstorms ... or not.

Boulders --> Gone.
Chevrons --> Gone.
Superstorms --> Gone.

Excuse me, while I deepen that hole of mine.

BBD said...

Boulders --> Gone.
Chevrons --> Gone.
Superstorms --> Gone.

Reply --> unwritten.

I can't judge whether the boulders etc is wrong in H15 but your arguments about SLR were certainly specious. Which is why I have no doubt at all that you will *not* make them in a formal reply.

Prove me wrong - or correct - about the bullshitting and trolling.

Kevin O'Neill said...

EFS - 2 of 50 something boulders does not equal "boulders gone". You just keep digging.

Likewise the chevrons require a bit more analysis before I'm buying the Bourgeois & Weiss explanation. Composition, nesting, and uni-direction all argue against it - as does the relatively short timeframe during which they were created, especially given the transgressive, regressive, transgressive nature of the MIS 5e deposits. 'chevrons ---> gone' doesn't really shed any light on the matter.

I haven't seen reference to any Holocene chevrons that are considered modern (more recent) analogues to the Bahamas MIS 5e chevrons; so your implication is rather a hollow one. It's a specious argument akin to those who say, 'climate has always changed.'

Everett F Sargent said...


Actually, thanks to Willard Anthony Watts (what an idiot), there is already a good statistical sample at H15, of how NOT to write a reply.

There is only a sample of one though, on how to write a god licker reply. But the again, you have Monkers and Willis, the absolute masters of god lickery to use for that template. So do I go for the GOLD in god dicklickery?

Thanks again Eli, for bring up the Rud Istvan nonsense, that one is truly a classic.

I might even go for the GOLD, can anyone (over the) top Rud Istvan's reply to H15.

As to SLR, I'm only extremely critical of the 5-year doubling (parameter-space-wise), and say critical of the 10-year doubling (5m by 2099AD). Me personally? Well my opinion doesn't really matter, it is a range of doublings after all (see I am listening to you all), but me personally, I'd have chosen something between 5-10 years doubling, something between 10-15 years doubling and something between 15-20 years doubling, this is Captain Hindsight speaking though, so go figure. Beside the fact that, I'm still at the tl;dr stage (121 pages at the discussion paper site or Hansen's site 65-6 page version). So, while that is just an issue of parameterization, it does deserve at least a comment in passing. So, since I've been told (tl;dr) that there best estimate is somewhat closer to 10-year doubling as opposed to 20-year doubling (i. e. between 10 and 20 year doublings), I seriously doubt that that particular value (5-year doubling) has much, if any, impact on their major conclusions. So in some sense perhaps a non sequitur.

I didn't know that I was trolling, but the feedback has been good, so thanks and whatever.

Note to self, never take oneself too seriously (e. g. the Evan Jones template model).

Kevin O'Neill said...

EFS - as already pointed out; the 5-year doubling is a red herring. It's not a case of 'So, since I've been told ..." - you've had the relevant sections quoted to you. You were wrong to even bring up the 5-yr doubling as pertinent to this paper. Admit your mistake and drop it already.

What is troubling to me is that SLR in the past has not always been continuous, but often episodic. So a 6 - 9m increase across a few thousand years during MIS 5e is really pretty misleading when the bulk of it occurs in 3 or 4 pulses. The question then becomes, are we close to a pulse? Again, uncertainty is not our friend.

Everett F Sargent said...

Kevin O'Neill,

Actually no, one only needs to explain the one toughest boulder to transport (e. g. simplistically the largest boulder), in terms of total forcing, in moving said boulder from point A to point B.

One other thing though, the boulder conjecture is rather easily testable in a laboratory environment (say the OSU/NSF tsunami facility, I was there in 2006 testing a coastal structure called the LMCS, let's just say that it didn't break under maximum facility wave generation capabilities (~SS6))

You really should check out the aerials of that shoreface in Google Earth, I was expecting a vertical shoreface (check) given the Holocene SL history (say ~6-8-10kyrs of rather benign water levels). But to my surprise, that shoreface is mostly concave (the top sticks out more so than the bottom). Which itself, given the Eemian high stand timeline, suggests an even easier mechanism of boulder formation and lifting, wave cavity overpressure. Must look at the other locations though, something I'd like to think I'm really good at (being a coastal nearshore structures type of person).

As to those Holocene chevrons, err, hmm, Eemian chevrons, I too (if I'm reading you right, that is) am skeptical as to causality (winds vs waves vs tsunamis vs meteor/comet impacts (mega-tsunamis of non-earth origins seems to kind of be way out there, but they have done what appears to be a good job of locating those Holocene chevrons all over the world's coastlines).

Having said that, it really isn't causality we need to explain, we only need to explain sameness, and if that sameness metric is the current climate science sameness metric (CO2 was the same in ... as it is today, water level was the same in ... as it is today) then it's pretty much a no brainer.

If we see beaucoup Holocene era chevrons (which we do, and at much higher elevations than possible in the Bahamas) and we see relics of Eemian chevrons (which we do) then if it is necessary to invoke the Eemian superstorms conjecture, I'd argue that we would need to invoke the Holocene superstorms conjecture, or some such. And since the Holocene is much closer to the present (10kyr vs 120kyr) remnants/relics of those much more recent Holocene superstorms, one would expect, would be much easier to find?

Anyways, sameness, chevrons then chevrons now, superstorms then superstorms now. We already call the Holocene superstorms something, hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones, oh my.

The real kicker though is the USACE ERDC WES CHL has a state-of-the-art kick ass storm surge database (tropical and extratropical storms of record, it is purported (personal communications with the PI) to be way better than anything else out there (both in real time and hindcast modes).

Everett F Sargent said...

Kevin O'Neill,


We all are on the internets. Yes?

From this end your comment appears to be a DEMAND.

What "mistake" are you referring too? tl;dr I've already admitted so.

However, those three doubling times are used, I have a different technical opinion, certainly about the 5-year doubling time, and significantly less so on the 10-year doubling time, regardless of the tl;dr admission.

It's my choice if I want to make an ass out of myself, after all it is an open discussion is it not (and there are already many asshole replies, what's one more)?

I don't even expect a reply at all from the authors on that one, for me it's just a matter of record. In the end, it won't scratch, or even touch, the paper one iota.

Note to self, the Lew.

Kevin O'Neill said...

EFS: I'm an a complete amateur at this. You sorta kinda claim to actually know something about it. Problem is, I don't think you've actually read half of what we're discussing.

I asked, are there recent Holocene analogues to the Bahamas chevron ridges? I'm not sure what your response actually was - but it a simple 'No' or 'I don't know' or "Yes, right over here' would have been helpful.

I mentioned composition, orientation, and nesting. Your response seems to be, irrelevant. Huh? Have you actually read the Hearty paper much of this is based on?

"Although similar to parabolic dunes in gross morphology, several features in chevrons demonstrate that chevrons are deposited by water rather than by wind. These distinctions include (Table 1) the presence of beach fenestrae, graded bedding, and the absence of the compact bedding and bedforms typical of the migratory parabolic dunes. Indeed, there are no known examples of true migratory carbonate dunes in the Bahamas despite abundant sand supply and strong prevailing winds"

Everett F Sargent said...

Keven O'Neill,

Yes, I posted the link earlier (warning that is the comet/meteor mega tsunami impact hypothesis/conjecture site).

RE: Chevrons, I'm in the exact same boat (that's why I'll be calling on the broader coastal community for an independent assessment), (boulders and recurved seawalls (overpressure) very much less so, but I do have several SME's directly at my disposal (two in particular)).

The map and imagery are the important parts IMHO.

RE: Healy, another admission tl;dr (well Actually I did look at the authors to see who their "coastal" person/people was/were). However, in doing a Google search (something like chevrons eemian bahamas) I found three of his papers (I need to collect them all) in PDF format, said to myself "that name sounds familiar" looked again at the author list, bingo, PDF's saved and only partially read (pictures plan/profile views of areas of interest). I already found the paper you linked to.

There are a fair number of papers on chevrons, from the MSM fixation era with mega tsunamis, circa 2000-2010 (mainly 2006-2009), there does not appear to be one major or consensus on Holocene coastal chevron causality, from what I've been able to find to date, things appear to have quieted down since say 2010 with respect to chevrons.

If Healy has specific papers on modern Holocene chevrons, then I'd read those first. Or any papers from coastal types specifically dealing with Holocene chevron composition. I have a feeling that you would side with the geologist. I'm was a water wave forces guy, I was a water wave modeller, I don't need to invoke superstorms when well know superstorms already exist today. And I have a 6-9 meter bonus for the Eemian, if it happened then and isn't happening now --> 6-9 meter bonus <-- does favor my points of knowledge (same storm climatology -> in 6-9 meters deeper waters -> roughly 6-9 meter bigger waves -> nearshore bathymetry governs (so like I stated earlier, you just can't get those orientation features strictly from wave action alone, something else appears to be at work here IMHO)). I'll revisit this in another post, clarity is the key, I know that my writing style is not my best asset.

Also migratory suggests wind moving (like inland dunes and smaller length scales). Those satellite images of Holocene chevrons certainly appear to be large scale features. Composition? Movement?

Have a look at those images at the link I've provided, the orientations of those Holocene chevrons bare a striking resemblance to those Eemian chevrons IMHO.

Mal Adapted said...

Everett F. Sargent:

"That is all."

If only.

BBD said...


There is only a sample of one though, on how to write a god licker reply.

Hansen's just a secular saint :-)

But see Job 6.10 for general guidance:

Then should I yet have comfort; yea, I would harden myself in sorrow: let him not spare; for I have not concealed the words of the Holy One.


Everett F Sargent said...


Yeah, that's the ticket.

You might as well quote the Bible in Greek, I never got past the cover.

I did go to eight years of Catholic parochial school though, that 2nd grade catechism, and it's rather vivid description of Hell, did make me want to go there, see Hell 1st hand so to speak. I mean seriously, warping fragile little minds, I'm thinking others had actually been there, done that, and come back to write those rather vivid descriptions. Doubt.

Now that I'm in the Bible Belt, any time I retell that story, OMFG, the fundies just don't get it, they are unable to see that story (my story, my memories) as seen through the eyes (mind) of that seven year old.

Sad to say, those years were not good for me, bad grammar, bad speller, unteachable, retarded even (my younger sister was mentally handicapped, crosseyed into the 2nd grade even, my other younger sister also fared very poorly there). Mom was really a societal idiot.

Public school and college almost saved me, moving to the Deep South, that one, that cancer of my early formative youth, was not in permanent remission, after all.

So when you take quotes out of the Bible, I don't get it, I can't get it, because that bad grammer (of my youth) always get's in the effin' way.

Numbers, equations, I get those things, the written word, specifically the old school written word, a la Bible (or even in the modern english Biblical forms), I'm a retard, in that sense. Splain every single word to me, one on one, its structure, its meaning(s), it doesn't matter how you try, I'm a retard. Its not that I should, its not that I would, its because I can't, I'm a retard.

Think I'll go join ISIS/ISIL now.