tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post6878418815393681387..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Sea level discussionSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35258870865620504102015-05-30T17:23:03.091+10:002015-05-30T17:23:03.091+10:002014.7051 65.864
2014.7323 58.023
2014.7594 ...2014.7051 65.864<br />2014.7323 58.023<br />2014.7594 60.736<br />2014.7866 67.344<br />2014.8137 68.780<br />2014.8409 65.301<br />2014.8680 65.015<br />2014.8951 59.381<br />2014.9223 61.591<br />2014.9494 70.723<br />2014.9766 70.522<br />2015.0037 66.662<br />2015.0309 64.804<br />2015.0580 62.115<br />2015.0852 68.589<br />2015.1123 69.745<br />2015.1395 75.007Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84149961319804045042015-05-30T15:26:49.864+10:002015-05-30T15:26:49.864+10:00Take a look at how mm the graph has added since th...Take a look at how mm the graph has added since this article was posted. JCHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73298854227058537582014-11-01T20:23:40.078+11:002014-11-01T20:23:40.078+11:00I look forward to your blog article, MH. I've ...I look forward to your blog article, MH. I've been reading up a bit on ENSO and related topics (eg Indian Ocean and probable ENSO teleconnections) and saw there is discussion in the literature of the link between sea level in some parts and SOI/ENSO.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53648635653000605562014-11-01T20:18:03.877+11:002014-11-01T20:18:03.877+11:00I should have included that - my bad.
I'm wor...I should have included that - my bad.<br /><br />I'm working on the correlation between ocean oscillations and sea-level change once more (took a long break from blogging). It's ENSO (Southern Oscillation) which has caused the big difference in sea-level change between east and west Pacific over the satellite period. SOI went strongly negative after 1978, and at many W Pacific sites sea-level actually dropped; at others the rate of rise dropped significantly or to zero. <br /><br />After 1994 SOI trended strongly positive, and W Pacific sea-levels reflected that with a strong rebound, which unfortunately pretty-much coincided with the start of satellite altimetry. This has resulted in a distorted view of sea-level rise in the W Pacific. The simultaneous, also correlated, stasis or drop in the central and E Pacific has been largely ignored (white & blue areas on the NOAA graphic above). NOAA is quite aware of the effects of ocean oscillations on sea-level change; it's just that few if any have ever attempted to quantify those effects.<br /><br />If SOI stabilises as mostly positive over the next couple of decades, short-term rates of rise should more accurately reflect the underlying trend. I'm preparing a blog post on the subject, hoping to partly fill a gap in our knowledge of such effects.MostlyHarmlesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18058940884892720332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50396290563087657752014-10-30T23:17:01.201+11:002014-10-30T23:17:01.201+11:00Welcome to HotWhopper, MostlyHarmless.
(Here'...Welcome to HotWhopper, MostlyHarmless. <br /><br />(Here's <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/10/anthony-watts-and-others-fail-ocean.html" rel="nofollow">the link to the ocean chemistry article</a> MostlyHarmless referred to.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32087876782657211032014-10-30T21:43:53.060+11:002014-10-30T21:43:53.060+11:00I'm the "Mostlyharmless" whose WUWT ...I'm the "Mostlyharmless" whose WUWT comment was quoted in the <a rel="nofollow">Ocean Chemistry</a> post. I'm a sceptic in the scientific sense (as everyone should be), and see myself as truthful, objective, and hopefully incisive. I delight in exploding myths. I also post under my real name Tony Price.<br /><br />I read WUWT because occasionally there's something useful and informative there. I rarely comment there these days - incisive and critical comments are often (usually?) ignored. However, when I see a piece of gratuitous ordure like the Japanese lake research extrapolated to ocean chemistry post, I couldn't remain silent. Introduction over, back on topic.<br /><br />The ocean surface is not level, but "lumpy" for various reasons; local gravity, density (temperature, salinity), air pressure, currents, wind, outflow from rivers, rotation of the Earth, tides, changes in Moon's orbit, ocean cycles such as the Pacific Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, and a few others I can't remember just now. MSL change is far from uniform, mainly because of changes in the factors I've listed. I've been studying sea-level change in some depth (pun intended) for several years, and I've come to some (inevitable) conclusions.<br /><br />The most significant (as far as this blog is concerned) is that those who claim that global MSL isn't increasing have their heads in the sand; they'll get their hair wet anytime soon. Those who claim that satellite sea-level data is "rubbish" are wilfully ignorant and disingenuous. Steven Goddard and Nils-Axel Mörner are foremost amongst those. The former hasn't ever directly compared satellite data with tide-gauge records <b>over the exact same period</b>, and the latter just lies about it, and sea-level change in general. The mere fact that his off-the-mark, ignorant, and worse-than-misleading outpourings are received uncritically by many (including Anthony Watts) tells you more about them than about him.<br /><br />I have to depart (literally) now, but will return soon to comment further on past and present sea-level change. I use the word <b>change</b> deliberately - note the blue and white areas on the satellite graphic above - mainly the central Pacific, and the whole Pacific seaboard of the Americas.MostlyHarmlesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18058940884892720332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17891274640644066162014-10-28T09:56:27.672+11:002014-10-28T09:56:27.672+11:00Quite an interesting bit of conversation in which ...Quite an interesting bit of conversation in which I do not have time at the moment to participate, unfortunately. I think the comment, "The only way you'll make progress is to go study physics, starting from a very basic level and working up," is accurate. Advocating, "If you do devote the time and effort to that, I wish you luck, " is an appropriate "bon voyage;" we all wish Graeme well. Unfortunately, there is truth in, "If you don't, then please have the honesty to admit (to yourself and others) that *you* don't understand, rather than claiming that it is the scientists who don't "get it." This outcome is not something any teacher wishes to see, but we have all witnessed. i am sorry to leave Graeme dangling but I must. Jonathan Gradienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11094690002719021612014-10-27T12:18:22.422+11:002014-10-27T12:18:22.422+11:00"MSL is NOT the same 'height' everywh...<i>"MSL is NOT the same</i> 'height' <i>everywhere …"</i> (in the potential energy sense). <a href="http://docs.safe.com/fme/html/FME_Workbench/Default.htm#coordinate_systems_heights.htm" rel="nofollow"> Exactly</a>, EFS. <i>Some parts of the ocean are persistently higher than others due to local factors including temperature and currents. Therefore, tidal datums are superior at measuring relative to the (local) coastline and local sea level, and geoid-based vertical datums are superior at measuring heights consistently over large areas including both ocean and land.</i> <br /><br />In a set of papers in the July issue 2009 of <i>Nature Geoscience</i> (behind a pay wall) devoted to sea-level rise, <i> … researchers are acknowledging that a single value of projected sea level doesn't fit all. Satellite data … show that the sea is already rising more quickly in some regions than in others. "Indeed, one of the few statements that can be made with certainty is that future sea-level change will not be the same everywhere."</i> <br /><br /><i>Global mean sea level (MSL) isn't a physical constant so much as a <b>concept</b>. For one thing, cold, salty waters occupy less volume than warmer, fresher seas, so MSL tends to be higher near the equator and lower toward the poles. However, trends in temperature and salinity, 'steric' processes, aren't unfolding equally across the globe, because some areas (of seawater) are warming and/or freshening more than others.</i><br /><br /><i>Just as a jet stream in the atmosphere separates zones of higher and lower air pressure, the fast-moving Gulf Stream separates areas of differing MSL as it runs up the Atlantic coast. The average MSL to the east of the Gulf Stream is considerably higher than it is between the current and the shoreline. For example, sea level typically runs about 60 cm (2 ft) higher in Bermuda than in New York. "I don't think most people appreciate this fact," says Michael Schlesinger, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) who has studied sea-level rise since the 1980s. If the Gulf Stream were to weaken, the difference in sea level on its east and west sides would slacken, thus bringing higher sea levels to the U.S. and Canadian coasts.</i>" <a href="https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/in-brief/834/rough-seas" rel="nofollow"> Source</a> <br /><br />Excuse the lazy comment. I lack the pedagogical skills of a JG to take it from the static to the dynamic.George Montgomeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07042191140401441348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53968672755513208742014-10-27T03:14:18.834+11:002014-10-27T03:14:18.834+11:00I can say one definite thing about "Graeme M&...I can say one definite thing about "Graeme M" misunderstanding something very basic, having just read the first ~third of the previous post.<br /><br />MSL is NOT the same everywhere regardless of what one reads on Wikipedia (or elsewhere on the Internet).<br /><br />MSL, historically speaking, was always a LOCAL convention. MSL was never meant to be a universal absolute benchmark, it was, and has been a locally derived relative benchmark, just like MLW, MLLW, MWL, MHW, MHHW are meant to be locality only benchmarks.<br /><br />There then are other local "absolute" datums like NGVD29 and NAVD88.<br /><br />Finally, there are attempts to define the global geoid in an absolute reference system (global x,y and z).<br /><br />I use to be a coastal engineer working for the USACE ERDC WES CHL.<br /><br />In that career I did a lot of work on harbor resonance and moored ship motion (nodes and antinodes) for the POLA/POLB (post 1982-3 El Nino (but I did a lot of work on those wave/surge datasets) and afterwards).<br /><br />I also did DGPS surveys at Barbers Point HI, Charleston SC and the Panama Canal (during the 1997 El Nino).<br /><br />In Charleston Harbor (and the other two) we placed 3 GPS receivers aboard inbound/outbound cargo ships. We traveled ~ 10 miles out to sea and ~20 miles inland (Charleston). In doing that research effort, I came to realize that all the water level benchmarks were local and had NEVER been tied together by ANY surveying method whatsoever. All water level benchmarks were locally defined. Purpose of all these efforts? Define relative and absolute ship motions (like roll and squat).<br /><br />So in short:<br /><br />MSL = Local relative defined benchmarks<br />Vertical Datums = Continental scale absolute defined benchmarks<br />Geoid = Global absolute defined benchmarks<br />Nodes/Antinodes = locations on minimum changes/locations of maximum changesEverett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3265599587556928092014-10-26T20:20:51.945+11:002014-10-26T20:20:51.945+11:00"as he said "until it was pointed out to...<i>"as he said "until it was pointed out to you" - whenever in the past it was pointed out to us "</i><br /><br />OK, I probably misunderstood this. Though that probably applies to 99.9% of what we know. (For the most creative amongst us that is).<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86078323530427800402014-10-26T18:49:11.810+11:002014-10-26T18:49:11.810+11:00DJ - Graeme M/Billy Bob won't be commenting he...DJ - Graeme M/Billy Bob won't be commenting here any more.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87676226059103679042014-10-26T18:13:09.534+11:002014-10-26T18:13:09.534+11:00"Water seeks to be level"
Well what do ..."Water seeks to be level"<br /><br />Well what do the OBSERVATIONS say.<br /><br />"The ocean surface has highs and lows, similar to the hills and valleys of Earth's land surface depicted on a topographic map. These variations, called ocean surface topography (or sea surface topography), also dynamic topography, are mapped using measurements of sea surface height relative to Earth's geoid. Earth's geoid is a calculated surface of equal gravitational potential energy and represents the shape the sea surface would be if the ocean were not in motion.<br /><br />The height variations of ocean surface topography can be as much as two meters and are influenced by ocean circulation, ocean temperature, and salinity."<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_surface_topography<br /><br />So that's a big fat NO.<br /><br />So the discussion should have ended there, but were the FACTS and OBSERVATIONS accepted. NO. They were denied and denied and denied and denied and denied.<br /><br />So given that the ocean is in fact not level, measurement of sea level at a SINGLE location to determine sea level rise is totally and utterly useless. That's where the M in GMSL comes into play. It stands for mean, or average, and to determine a good average requires many data points, over a long period of time.<br /><br />But did Graeme M incorporate this simple FACT into his brain. NO.<br /><br />"Your summary of my simple model is simply NOT what I said"<br /><br />Why don't you state what your model is then in the first place, instead of skirting around it. So if my interpretation of your model is incorrect, then WHAT is your model? State it in ONE sentence. I asked you to do this but you refused/ignored me. It is a very simple request. DJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35081900534758997832014-10-26T18:02:48.490+11:002014-10-26T18:02:48.490+11:00Looks as if Graeme / Billy Bob is trying to make o...Looks as if Graeme / Billy Bob is trying to make out he's not as ignorant about climate science as his comments over the past few weeks indicate. If that's the case (and I'm not convinced), then his <a href="http://hotwhopper.com/HotWhoppery.html" rel="nofollow">history of (a) dumb denierisms (and (b) tone trolling)</a> over the past few weeks is even more reason to ban him. It would mean he had simply spent the last few weeks trolling for attention, and didn't mean what he wrote. Like I say, I'm not convinced that (a) wasn't for real, though (b) is evident. Whatever. That's it now.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19771059742388930412014-10-26T17:39:46.748+11:002014-10-26T17:39:46.748+11:00I said I shan't comment here again about any p...I said I shan't comment here again about any post, and that is the case. I will continue to visit and read. But I had to make one last response to some of the more recent observations, and DJ's above sort of encapsulates what I mean.<br /><br />DJ, you are completely misunderstanding my position. Your summary of my simple model is simply NOT what I said. I have no idea why I cannot communicate what seems a relatively simple concept. What you have said is simply nonsensical and if I had such a simplistic naive idea, I'd agree that my arguments are quite fallacious.<br /><br />George M above makes an observation about my argument and how that relates to MSL and the geoid, and similarly completely misinterprets my argument.<br /><br />Everett then notes that the geoid may be dynamic over time and that this clearly escaped my notice. No Everett, that the geoid varies over time is a completely obvious concept. I do understand that. Not only does it vary over time, but our computation of its surface has improved considerably over time. For example, EGM2008 is a much better model than EGM96. This is thanks to advances in satellite altimetry, notably GRACE measurements.Graeme Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9142121492498323152014-10-26T16:38:46.119+11:002014-10-26T16:38:46.119+11:00"Water seeks to be level."
No.
A liqui..."Water seeks to be level."<br /><br />No.<br /><br />A liquid will reach an equilibrium that is the sum total of the forces acting upon it. It's that simple.<br /><br />Your insistence on a gotcha-type of cornering is nothing more than imagining only <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/10/sea-level-discussion.html?showComment=1414195653752#c5820290372863893995" rel="nofollow">Steve Bloom's</a> and <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/10/sea-level-discussion.html?showComment=1414182805514#c1109983839512489382" rel="nofollow">John Mashey's</a> spherical cows. Reality is much more complicated, as <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/10/sea-levels-and-global-ice-volumes-over.html?showComment=1413884881201#c2355308831807152771" rel="nofollow">Lotharsson summarised</a>, and your attempt to limit a liquid's theoretical response to gravity alone is irrelevant to any argument about global sea level. If nothing else, you are working on a model of water as a fluid that ignores that the atmosphere is also a fluid, and hence that the topography of the surface of the seas is the sum of the distribution of the single overall system that is both water and air. And we all know that the planet's atmosphere is hardly static...<br /><br />"Level" is a naïve concept, and a seriously misleading one in attempting to grasp the profoud ignorance that underlay Spangled Drongo's countless errors of understanding on those lengthy Deltoid threads. Drongo had nothing substantive to offer the sea level debate because he ignored so many parameters germane to the discussion that everything he said was rendered irrelevant.<br /><br />You seem determined to follow exactly in his footsteps.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11330101838284452742014-10-26T14:51:35.602+11:002014-10-26T14:51:35.602+11:00The main problem as I see it was that BB was tryin...The main problem as I see it was that BB was trying to apply his simple model, (water in a glass is flat, therefore the ocean is flat, therefore sea level rise can be measured from a single location) while totally ignoring/denying the observations that invalidated his model. This is anti-science, and is typical of denier mentality. Instead of accepting that their model is wrong, deniers will try and gish gallop their way to 'proving' that their model is indeed correct. This is not the first time we have seen this, and I doubt it will be the last. DJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35234445963074471972014-10-26T14:42:47.377+11:002014-10-26T14:42:47.377+11:00Lotharsson, you're spot on - ie in line with t...Lotharsson, you're spot on - ie in line with the reasoning behind HW in general and this thread in particular. It doesn't rely on any assumptions about Graeme or his motivation or any expectations of what he might learn. It was not primarily intended to "teach" Graeme about anything. It's completely unrealistic to expect that a blog can replace years of learning in a classroom environment, or that a single blog article could present all that is known about oceans and sea level.<br /><br />The purpose, as with most of HW, is to expose denialist memes and point people to where they can find out more about the science itself. To that end, the article and the comments here aren't too bad, I'd have thought. Not a patch on what we'd learn from a series of lectures by people from the Potsdam institute or Jerry X. Mitrovica. (Graeme would have to pass some pre-requisites in ocean studies before attending, I'd expect, if he wanted to learn from those :D)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48929131744707040222014-10-26T14:09:18.684+11:002014-10-26T14:09:18.684+11:00The other thing that strikes me on reflection abou...The other thing that strikes me on reflection about Jonathan's comment is that it seems to be predicated on the only way forward being to teach Graeme to (fairly) fully understand the complex system we're talking about. That presumes the goal of most of the other commenters - and Graeme - is understanding the system, or drawing conclusions that require that understanding. <br /><br />I doubt that very much, although in Graeme's case I've operated on this thread with the assumption that he does want to improve his understanding.<br /><br />I think it's a reasonable inference from this thread, the previous thread here and the original thread at Deltoid that Graeme's goal is to find a way to conclude that sea level rise due to global warming is not happening and nothing to worry about.<br /><br />My own goal is to have readers (and maybe even but not necessarily Graeme) understand the invalidity of his argument asserting that (essentially) one sea level time series observation at one coastal location that (allegedly) doesn't show much change in several decades does not imply that the sea level changes have been the same at all other coastal locations (give or take 100mm) - which implies that any observed variations exceeding this level in sea level rise at different locations around the world are "not real" and hence sea level rise due to global warming isn't anything to worry about. This goal does not require a solid understanding of the complex system as it can be achieved by applying basic logic sans any real climate system understanding to the argument. (Readers will note that Graeme refused to touch that point with a bargepole.) <br /><br />It can also be achieved by understanding that the argument relies on ignoring factors that matter as known by people who do understand the complexities of the system (in other words, that the argument springs from too far into the confident incompetent state described by Dunning & Kruger), although I find it's rare that people exhibiting the characteristics of denial rather than mere ignorance who start out there will admit to themselves that that's where they were - perhaps because I don't follow the incremental approach Jonathan recommends?<br /><br />All that said, if Jonathan cares to show us how it's done I'd love to see how he would approach it with Graeme and how the resulting dialogue would evolve. We all might learn something really valuable.Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78256634703159972002014-10-26T11:20:58.104+11:002014-10-26T11:20:58.104+11:00Re the gravity issue, I think I misunderstood Jona...Re the gravity issue, I think I misunderstood Jonathan's comment as applying to us all this week. It's more likely he meant commenters here wouldn't have thought of it all by themselves, as he said "until it was pointed out to you" - whenever in the past it was pointed out to us (by Jerry Mitrovica and colleagues or someone else). Which would certainly be true in my case. Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49341262232021876792014-10-26T10:05:46.880+11:002014-10-26T10:05:46.880+11:00"I speak seriously when I say I understood ev..."I speak seriously when I say I understood every word everyone else wrote"<br /><br />No. You really didn't. And that's the underlying problem. You demonstrated repeatedly that you did not understand most of what was explained to you. And no amount of further explanation will help. <br /><br />The only way you'll make progress is to go study physics, starting from a very basic level and working up. By the time you get to the point where you have enough knowledge and understanding to think about questions like this people's comments will make sense to you. <br /><br />If you do devote the time and effort to that, I wish you luck. If you don't, then please have the honesty to admit (to yourself and others) that *you* don't understand, rather than claiming that it is the scientists who don't "get it."<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9615265310644534532014-10-26T04:36:59.174+11:002014-10-26T04:36:59.174+11:00OK so I watched the ~30 minute long Mitrovica vide...OK so I watched the ~30 minute long Mitrovica video.<br /><br />Very informative, and certainly not intuitive at all.<br /><br />If I understand what all he is saying, is that the geoid is dynamic (a function of time).<br /><br />It sure would be nice to see a time lapse of the changing shape of the geoid though.<br /><br />So Graeme M is left with developing a different system of geophysical partial differential equations, showing that "water is level" and publish that in the (E&E) "peer reviewed" literature.<br /><br />Dynamic equilibrium. What a concept.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26178555999845633822014-10-26T02:03:57.969+11:002014-10-26T02:03:57.969+11:00Yes, I thought that was an odd comment to make, pa...Yes, I thought that was an odd comment to make, particularly seeing that more than one person did the pointing out, which nullifies the "none who comment". Regular readers would be familiar with the work of Jerry Mitrovica. He has been featured here at HW a few times already, for example:<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/sea-level-for-dummies-video-by.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/sea-level-for-dummies-video-by.html</a><br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/wuwt-readers-are-too-scared-to-read.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/wuwt-readers-are-too-scared-to-read.html</a><br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/the-desire-to-not-look-stupid-is-pretty.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/the-desire-to-not-look-stupid-is-pretty.html</a>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20321030090930149522014-10-26T01:53:08.306+11:002014-10-26T01:53:08.306+11:00"I'll suspect none who comment here ever ...<i>"I'll suspect none who comment here ever contemplated the effects on the local gravitational field of the Greenland or Antarctic landed ice masses and the subsequent counter intuitive effects on sea level as the landed ice melts until it was pointed out to you."</i><br /><br />Why would you suspect that? You may be expressing dismay at this thread but I do not see why you need to make such a sweeping and wrong dismissive statement. I suspect most of the people here have some inkling of the effects.<br /> <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3869711213022450412014-10-25T23:57:33.268+11:002014-10-25T23:57:33.268+11:00"Which one is less wrong is a matter of compa...<em>"Which one is less wrong is a matter of comparison with observation"</em><br /><br />Indeed. I did try to make pretty much that point earlier...Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84628262664636738612014-10-25T23:47:03.817+11:002014-10-25T23:47:03.817+11:00Jonathon Gradie, the (private) floor is yours ;-) ...Jonathon Gradie, the (private) floor is yours ;-) Let us know how you get on!Lotharssonnoreply@blogger.com