4 ms·

Interesting counter-argument[1] suggests 1) data was cherry picked: "The alarmistic claim originates from riding the positive phase of the inter-annual, decada

by jb613 10y ago

Interesting counter-argument[1] suggests 1) data was cherry picked: "The alarmistic claim originates from riding the positive phase of the inter-annual, decadal and multi-decadal oscillations typical of the sea levels over a cherry picked short time window of 10-15 years, neglecting what was measured before 1994 by another tide gauge in pretty much same location, and also neglecting what has been measured in the same tide gauge since 2009. Short records do not permit to clear the trend of the inter-annual, decadal and multi-decadal oscillations [4-8]. In the Solomon Islands there is no tide gauge long enough to infer a proper trend. However, the information available permits to dismiss the alarmist claim of 7-10 mm yr-1 rate of rise." 2) statistically not enough data for trends in sea levels: "Also including Honiara II, starting from December 1974 the rate of rise is +2.81 mm yr-1. The time window is now 42 years long, still insufficient, but certainly more reasonable. Considering 60-70 years of data are needed to start understanding a trend in sea levels, very likely these +2.81 mm yr-1 are still an overestimation of the relative rate of rise." [1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/10/busted-claim-data-shows-that-climate-induced-sea-level-rise-didnt-wipe-out-five-solomon-islands/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/10/busted-claim-data-sho...

throwaway5752 10y ago
Are you really comfortable citing them? Here's a discussion of the author of that post's prior work: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/making-up-stuff/ https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/making-up-stuff/ edit: fascinating how easy it is to be downvoted simply by pointing out the lack of credibility of AGW skeptics. On one hand, you have the overwhelming majority (97-74%) of professional scientist saying (respectively) that global warming is occuring or that it's man-made and provable with existing science. On the other hand, you have people with dubious credentials, poor ethics, and/or extraordinary conflicts of interest as paid fellow at Cato, Heartland, AEI, et al. All of this is easily verified by simple use of a search engine. Since... just about nobody here is a professional climate researcher, I think all we can go on is the credibility of sources of information. It is not ad hominem to bring someone's motivation and prior record into consideration.
- mistermann 10y ago
  > On one hand, you have the overwhelming majority (97-74%) of professional scientist saying (respectively) that global warming is occuring or that it's man-made and provable with existing science. To me there's a big difference between acknowledging that it's occurring and saying it is primarily caused by man. We know we've gone through these cycles in the past. Actually, assuming your quote is correct, I find it a bit offensive that the "or" is typically presented as "and" in the mainstream narrative.
- hueving 10y ago
  >overwhelming majority (97-74%) of professional scientist saying I've never understood this argument. What does agreement of other scientists from unrelated fields have to do with the soundness of a scientific theory? It's a thinly-veiled appeal to authority that I think really weakens non-scientific peoples' perceptions about how science works. >Since... just about nobody here is a professional climate researcher And neither are the majority of professional scientists that agree. Every scientist I've worked with (computational physics) doesn't know anything about climate science and (probably rightly) assumes that the people in the field know what they are doing so they agree because they trust the process. However, the approval of scientists in unrelated fields is about a relevant as the approval of a politician. So just stick with facts about the research itself. Additionally, there have been many times where "the overwhelming majority of scientists" have believed something that is incorrect. The thing that makes science special is that it is not a democracy. Theories are validated on their logic and evidence, not on whether or not they please a particular community of people. tl;dr. Stop bringing up how many people agree with something. It's not scientifically relevant.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway5752 10y ago
    If most experts in a field believe X, you should believe X unless you have good reason otherwise. Anyway, if that was the argument in isolation, you'd have a better point. There's also the matter of the rapid measured temperature increase in 20th century, glacial retreat, mass coral die-offs, historical records of Arctic sea ice, the body of published peer-reviewed work on it, among many other things. And... I take particular offense to "it's not scientifically relevant." There is a big difference between interpreting information and practicing science. The author of the link previously published an article with basic errors in its science and his two coauthors partially disavowed the work. He is publishing on a non-peer reviewed site with a known bias. And if you want get specific, read the provided "rebuttal" link. It basically amounts to "The 7-10 mm/yr claim is alarmist! If you look at this other tidal gauge, it's almost 10 mm/yr from 1995 onward, but it looks like it may have slowed to 5 mm/yr since then. Also, if you go back to 1974 - 20 before the uptrend starts - it's ony 3mm/yr!"
Oletros 10y ago
WUWT as a source?

by jb613 10y ago

throwaway5752 10y ago

Are you really comfortable citing them? Here's a discussion of the author of that post's prior work: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/making-up-stuff/ https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/making-up-stuff/ edit: fascinating how easy it is to be downvoted simply by pointing out the lack of credibility of AGW skeptics. On one hand, you have the overwhelming majority (97-74%) of professional scientist saying (respectively) that global warming is occuring or that it's man-made and provable with existing science. On the other hand, you have people with dubious credentials, poor ethics, and/or extraordinary conflicts of interest as paid fellow at Cato, Heartland, AEI, et al. All of this is easily verified by simple use of a search engine. Since... just about nobody here is a professional climate researcher, I think all we can go on is the credibility of sources of information. It is not ad hominem to bring someone's motivation and prior record into consideration.

mistermann 10y ago
> On one hand, you have the overwhelming majority (97-74%) of professional scientist saying (respectively) that global warming is occuring or that it's man-made and provable with existing science. To me there's a big difference between acknowledging that it's occurring and saying it is primarily caused by man. We know we've gone through these cycles in the past. Actually, assuming your quote is correct, I find it a bit offensive that the "or" is typically presented as "and" in the mainstream narrative.
hueving 10y ago
>overwhelming majority (97-74%) of professional scientist saying I've never understood this argument. What does agreement of other scientists from unrelated fields have to do with the soundness of a scientific theory? It's a thinly-veiled appeal to authority that I think really weakens non-scientific peoples' perceptions about how science works. >Since... just about nobody here is a professional climate researcher And neither are the majority of professional scientists that agree. Every scientist I've worked with (computational physics) doesn't know anything about climate science and (probably rightly) assumes that the people in the field know what they are doing so they agree because they trust the process. However, the approval of scientists in unrelated fields is about a relevant as the approval of a politician. So just stick with facts about the research itself. Additionally, there have been many times where "the overwhelming majority of scientists" have believed something that is incorrect. The thing that makes science special is that it is not a democracy. Theories are validated on their logic and evidence, not on whether or not they please a particular community of people. tl;dr. Stop bringing up how many people agree with something. It's not scientifically relevant.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  If most experts in a field believe X, you should believe X unless you have good reason otherwise. Anyway, if that was the argument in isolation, you'd have a better point. There's also the matter of the rapid measured temperature increase in 20th century, glacial retreat, mass coral die-offs, historical records of Arctic sea ice, the body of published peer-reviewed work on it, among many other things. And... I take particular offense to "it's not scientifically relevant." There is a big difference between interpreting information and practicing science. The author of the link previously published an article with basic errors in its science and his two coauthors partially disavowed the work. He is publishing on a non-peer reviewed site with a known bias. And if you want get specific, read the provided "rebuttal" link. It basically amounts to "The 7-10 mm/yr claim is alarmist! If you look at this other tidal gauge, it's almost 10 mm/yr from 1995 onward, but it looks like it may have slowed to 5 mm/yr since then. Also, if you go back to 1974 - 20 before the uptrend starts - it's ony 3mm/yr!"

Oletros 10y ago

WUWT as a source?