6 ms·

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 "d

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.
    - itcrowd 7y ago
      1) Your meme-image does not show there is no relation. In fact, the source of one of the lines in the image is by Berner [1] which states (p. 201): "This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect." The source of your image directly contradicts your claim. 2) RE "unlikely that [...] there would be only one control knob": I never said there was only one. I said it was a control knob. And it is in fact the most important one (but not the only one) [2]. 3) RE "I've seen all of potholer54's videos.": I think you need to watch them again. [1] "Geocarb III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time ", http://www.ajsonline.org/content/301/2/182 http://www.ajsonline.org/content/301/2/182 [2] "Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature", https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356 [3] As a side note: your image has no x- and y-axis scales. If you want to spread misleading images, at least use a better version (for instance, https://abruptearthchanges.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/no-long-term-correlation-between-co2-and-temperature.jpg?w=829 https://abruptearthchanges.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/no-lo...)

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.
  - itcrowd 7y ago
    1) Your meme-image does not show there is no relation. In fact, the source of one of the lines in the image is by Berner [1] which states (p. 201): "This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect." The source of your image directly contradicts your claim. 2) RE "unlikely that [...] there would be only one control knob": I never said there was only one. I said it was a control knob. And it is in fact the most important one (but not the only one) [2]. 3) RE "I've seen all of potholer54's videos.": I think you need to watch them again. [1] "Geocarb III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time ", http://www.ajsonline.org/content/301/2/182 http://www.ajsonline.org/content/301/2/182 [2] "Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature", https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356 [3] As a side note: your image has no x- and y-axis scales. If you want to spread misleading images, at least use a better version (for instance, https://abruptearthchanges.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/no-long-term-correlation-between-co2-and-temperature.jpg?w=829 https://abruptearthchanges.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/no-lo...)