3 ms·

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.pd

by 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
      The only thing you can say about the correlation in Geocarb II (my graph) and Geocarb III (your graph) is that 500 million years ago CO2 was 6000ppm and temperature 25ºC. Today CO2 is 410ppm, and temp 16ºC. That's it. So you could say there's a long term trend. But both graphs show wildly diverging lines between those points, in fact it was only during a few percent of the total time that the temperature rose when CO2 levels rose. This does not look like CO2 is mainly controlling the climate at all. So there is my problem. There are more problems, like the multiple periods of warming and cooling in the last 1000 years, that were just as bad or worse as what we're in now, but without human CO2. Like the fact that in the past CO2 followed temperature instead of preceding it (and the Milankovitch 'explanation' is not convincing at all), and like the fact that in recent years records are being shattered for cold weather all over the globe. And the media doesn't report about that. This thing about the climate is that everybody tells me to educate myself, and when I did, it only raised more questions.

by raarts 7y ago

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
    The only thing you can say about the correlation in Geocarb II (my graph) and Geocarb III (your graph) is that 500 million years ago CO2 was 6000ppm and temperature 25ºC. Today CO2 is 410ppm, and temp 16ºC. That's it. So you could say there's a long term trend. But both graphs show wildly diverging lines between those points, in fact it was only during a few percent of the total time that the temperature rose when CO2 levels rose. This does not look like CO2 is mainly controlling the climate at all. So there is my problem. There are more problems, like the multiple periods of warming and cooling in the last 1000 years, that were just as bad or worse as what we're in now, but without human CO2. Like the fact that in the past CO2 followed temperature instead of preceding it (and the Milankovitch 'explanation' is not convincing at all), and like the fact that in recent years records are being shattered for cold weather all over the globe. And the media doesn't report about that. This thing about the climate is that everybody tells me to educate myself, and when I did, it only raised more questions.