4 ms·

A later study by (former IPCC) Dr Judith Curry has gone more into this [1]. And the report I referenced was even later. The comments on that page BTW make abund

by raarts 7y ago

A later study by (former IPCC) Dr Judith Curry has gone more into this [1]. And the report I referenced was even later. The comments on that page BTW make abundantly clear that scientists do not agree at all that the sea level rise is accelerating, and even if it is, if it's more than a minute amount. Most of the rise graphs focus around satellite measurement starting from 1993 which seem to show 3mm/year rise, and attaching these number to the graphs of sea level tide gauges is heavily disputed as scientific heresy. Additionally to get to that 3mm the satellite measurements had to be corrected, an action which was explicitly rejected by the recent Deltares report I referenced. So, whatever people may think, acceleration is not a fact, and even the scientists that believe it, think it's very small. It's the alarmist media that blow it up to huge proportions. As a side note: I have been following climate news closely since a year now, and I have to say, I'm noticing strange patterns, in for example picking starting dates for graphs. Read for a recent example this article[2]. And I have noticed many occurrences of this, including from Goddard (part of NASA), NOAA, but also other institutions. This makes me suspicious. In my own country the Dutch Royal Meteorological Institute, was accused of erroneously changing past temperature data - supposedly to correct for changed sensor setups, to make heatwaves in the first half of the 20th century disappear. I read that report, and it was very careful, and very thorough. But the Meteorological Institute refused to discuss it. It's these things that make me very suspicious. There are more examples, but I won't make this overly long. So I would recommend looking really critically at any climate news, since in my experience most scientists do not agree on a lot of issues, despite claims to the contrary, and the subject is very heavily politicized. [1] https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/ https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-lev... [2] http://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2019/10/illustrating-the-corruption-in-climate-science.html http://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2019/10/illustrating-the-c...

itcrowd 7y ago
The climate news needs to be looked at with extreme caution, I agree. Newspapers tend to spin scientific reports in a specific direction (both "alarmist" and "denyist"). However, in general the scientific literature is very cautious, and presents models, measurements and conclusions along with their uncertainties and assumptions. The interpretation of these uncertainties and assumptions is often lost in translation when presented to the general public, which is a shame and should not be endorsed. From a PR perspective, it may be nice if the Meteorological institute(s) would give some public interview or explanation when doubts are cast on their work. The discussions get political really quickly, which leads to a blurring of the lines between what the facts are and what (politicians) suggest the solutions should be to curb carbon emissions. This needs to end. Unfortunately, we are still in the situation where people outright deny the human role in climate change and politicians on the "denier" side of the spectrum abuse this to continuously cast doubt on whether any action is required at all. That being said, you claim: "the satellite measurements had to be corrected, an action which was explicitly rejected by the recent Deltares report I referenced" but I couldn't find it in the report. The report (section 6.9) says [rough translation]: "The trend between satellite measurements and tide gauges [in the Netherlands] shows some agreement, along with their standard errors." and later "[..] satellite data are a less suitable source of deriving sea level rise". Note that this last quote should be interpreted in the Dutch sea level context, not the global context. > It's the alarmist media that blow it up to huge proportions. Agreed. That needs to stop. > I'm noticing strange patterns, in for example picking starting dates for graphs This, if true, is bad and needs to stop. It is the same behavior as the "deniers" have used for years (for example, the "no warming since 1998" meme).
- raarts 7y ago
  I just noticed that you linked the summary of the report, the actual report is here: https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonitor-2018-final.pdf https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonito... The researchers state (page 68 - my translation): "We don't see the worldwide acceleration observed by Nerem et al. (2018), within the 1993-2017 record. A correction for the eruption of the Pinatubo and El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) was needed to find that acceleration. These corrections we do not apply in the sea level monitor." I must say I'm currently on the fence about the role of CO2 in global warming. I've read enough to confidently say that the consensus claimed by the media is not there, so I'm not done reading yet.
  - itcrowd 7y ago
    It was my mistake to link to the summary, I was actually referring to the full report in the comments before. As for your quote, it needs to be read in the context of the full paragraph. Its written sloppily, but a better phrasing would be: "We don't see the worldwide acceleration observed by Nerem et al. (2018) in the Netherlands' coast area, within the 1993-2017 record". I.e. they are saying the global trend is not the same as the local (Dutch) trend. Perfectly reasonable. > I must say I'm currently on the fence about the role of CO2 in global warming. Well, I could imagine your doubts about sea level rise because they are difficult and uncertain. But there is absolutely no scientific doubt about the role of CO2 in global warming. In fact, CO2 as a control knob of the climate is the only way to explain climatic variations observed in (at least) the past 500 million years. What is uncertain is the predictions because they are influenced by action taken to curb emissions etc. There is a great video series on YouTube by "potholer54" that shows the scientific evidence for it better than I can. The first video is only 10 minutes and addresses the general points rather well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=2&t=0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8e...
    - raarts 7y ago
      > CO2 as a control knob of the climate is the only way to explain climatic variations observed in (at least) the past 500 million years I think you may now be stretching it: https://miro.medium.com/max/1320/0*3Vm0copgT8K-pcRm.gif https://miro.medium.com/max/1320/0*3Vm0copgT8K-pcRm.gif No relation between temperature and CO2 levels. Also, it's rather unlikely that for a system as complex as the climate there would be only one control knob. I've seen all of potholer54's videos.

by raarts 7y ago

itcrowd 7y ago

The climate news needs to be looked at with extreme caution, I agree. Newspapers tend to spin scientific reports in a specific direction (both "alarmist" and "denyist"). However, in general the scientific literature is very cautious, and presents models, measurements and conclusions along with their uncertainties and assumptions. The interpretation of these uncertainties and assumptions is often lost in translation when presented to the general public, which is a shame and should not be endorsed. From a PR perspective, it may be nice if the Meteorological institute(s) would give some public interview or explanation when doubts are cast on their work. The discussions get political really quickly, which leads to a blurring of the lines between what the facts are and what (politicians) suggest the solutions should be to curb carbon emissions. This needs to end. Unfortunately, we are still in the situation where people outright deny the human role in climate change and politicians on the "denier" side of the spectrum abuse this to continuously cast doubt on whether any action is required at all. That being said, you claim: "the satellite measurements had to be corrected, an action which was explicitly rejected by the recent Deltares report I referenced" but I couldn't find it in the report. The report (section 6.9) says [rough translation]: "The trend between satellite measurements and tide gauges [in the Netherlands] shows some agreement, along with their standard errors." and later "[..] satellite data are a less suitable source of deriving sea level rise". Note that this last quote should be interpreted in the Dutch sea level context, not the global context. > It's the alarmist media that blow it up to huge proportions. Agreed. That needs to stop. > I'm noticing strange patterns, in for example picking starting dates for graphs This, if true, is bad and needs to stop. It is the same behavior as the "deniers" have used for years (for example, the "no warming since 1998" meme).

raarts 7y ago
I just noticed that you linked the summary of the report, the actual report is here: https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonitor-2018-final.pdf https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonito... The researchers state (page 68 - my translation): "We don't see the worldwide acceleration observed by Nerem et al. (2018), within the 1993-2017 record. A correction for the eruption of the Pinatubo and El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) was needed to find that acceleration. These corrections we do not apply in the sea level monitor." I must say I'm currently on the fence about the role of CO2 in global warming. I've read enough to confidently say that the consensus claimed by the media is not there, so I'm not done reading yet.
- itcrowd 7y ago
  It was my mistake to link to the summary, I was actually referring to the full report in the comments before. As for your quote, it needs to be read in the context of the full paragraph. Its written sloppily, but a better phrasing would be: "We don't see the worldwide acceleration observed by Nerem et al. (2018) in the Netherlands' coast area, within the 1993-2017 record". I.e. they are saying the global trend is not the same as the local (Dutch) trend. Perfectly reasonable. > I must say I'm currently on the fence about the role of CO2 in global warming. Well, I could imagine your doubts about sea level rise because they are difficult and uncertain. But there is absolutely no scientific doubt about the role of CO2 in global warming. In fact, CO2 as a control knob of the climate is the only way to explain climatic variations observed in (at least) the past 500 million years. What is uncertain is the predictions because they are influenced by action taken to curb emissions etc. There is a great video series on YouTube by "potholer54" that shows the scientific evidence for it better than I can. The first video is only 10 minutes and addresses the general points rather well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=2&t=0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8e...
  - raarts 7y ago
    > CO2 as a control knob of the climate is the only way to explain climatic variations observed in (at least) the past 500 million years I think you may now be stretching it: https://miro.medium.com/max/1320/0*3Vm0copgT8K-pcRm.gif https://miro.medium.com/max/1320/0*3Vm0copgT8K-pcRm.gif No relation between temperature and CO2 levels. Also, it's rather unlikely that for a system as complex as the climate there would be only one control knob. I've seen all of potholer54's videos.