
Antarctic ice cliffs may not contribute to sea-level rise as much as predicted - Gedxx
http://news.mit.edu/2019/antarctic-ice-cliffs-not-contribute-sea-level-rise-1021
======
pgt
Where can I read an unbiased summary of the current state of climate models?

Last night I was called "alt-right" and a climate change denier by a peer for
hesitating to agree that we are in a climate crisis, because I said don't have
enough information about the situation and I'm suspicious whenever too many
people start shouting about something.

The precautionary principle still prevails, though. The more uncertain you
are, the more certain the course of action is, which is to avoid burning
hydrocarbons.

Edit: I meant to say precautionary principle, not "uncertainty principle".

~~~
wuliwong
I desire the same type of "unbiased" information myself but I do not believe
it is attainable for this topic. The amount of emotion that people have about
the effects of pollution on temperature makes it hard to take anything at face
value. The best I do is try to read up on different opinions and ignore people
telling me not to look or listen to something. Ultimately, though, I have a
Ph.D. in physics and not meteorology, so there is a limit to how well I'm
going to be able to understand the actual science involved.

On the topic of physics

>The uncertainty principle still prevails, though. The more uncertain you are,
the more certain the course of action is, which is to avoid burning
hydrocarbons.

This is _not_ the uncertainty principle. At least not the one I'm familiar
with. :)

~~~
nicoburns
Note that climate science is only really controversial in the US, and as I
understand it, it wasn't even controversial there 30 years ago. The current
political situation has arisen when the oil industry took issue with findings
coming out of climate science which was not at that time politicised.

Of course, predicting the climate it tricky business. But the underlying
processes (e.g. the greenhouse) are simple physics that a high-school student
can understand, and are completely beyond reasonable doubt.

How much more evidence do you need?

~~~
mistermann
> Of course, predicting the climate it tricky business. But the underlying
> processes (e.g. the greenhouse) are simple physics that a high-school
> student can understand, and are completely beyond reasonable doubt.

> How much more evidence do you need?

Understanding how the underlying processes work isn't evidence of the
specifics of how it is working in this instance.

As for wanting more evidence, I'd be interested to see some comprehensive
documentation on the data sources and adjustments that occur, including a full
honest disclosure of areas that are problematic for various reasons. I've read
some fairly detailed conspiracies related to this (some email leak, can't
recall the name), and as I recall the outcome of the investigation that was
promised essentially consisted of "we fully investigated and found no
problems, carry on".

As another example, I've also read a fair amount of interesting behind the
scenes details on the rise of "grassroots" activist Greta Thunburg that don't
get mentioned for some reason in the extensive coverage in the mainstream
media.

This and many other similar things do not give me a feeling of trust that
everything is on the up and up.

~~~
ceejayoz
> I've read some fairly detailed conspiracies related to this (some email
> leak, can't recall the name), and as I recall the outcome of the
> investigation that was promised essentially consisted of "we fully
> investigated and found no problems, carry on".

You're referring to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy),
where you'll find that eight different major organizations investigated, with
pretty detailed findings.

"The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this
context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of
handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more
different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion."

Maybe basing your opinion on climate science on "some email leak [you] can't
recall the name [of]" isn't ideal?

~~~
mistermann
Let's take the first one just as an example:

\------------------------------------------------------------

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

On 22 January 2010, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select
Committee announced it would conduct an inquiry into the affair, examining the
implications of the disclosure for the integrity of scientific research,
reviewing the scope of the independent Muir Russell review announced by the
UEA, and reviewing the independence of international climate data sets.[86]
The committee invited written submissions from interested parties, and
published 55 submissions that it had received by 10 February. They included
submissions from the University of East Anglia, the Global Warming Policy
Foundation, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Met
Office, several other professional bodies, prominent scientists, some climate
change sceptics, several MEPs and other interested parties.[87] An oral
evidence session was held on 1 March 2010.[88]

The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010
that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU
remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not
challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that
it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support
claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review
process.[89]

The committee criticised a "culture of non-disclosure at CRU" and a general
lack of transparency in climate science where scientific papers had usually
not included all the data and code used in reconstructions. It said that "even
if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or
the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would
still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other
international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and
the conclusions have been verified." The report added that "scientists could
have saved themselves a lot of trouble by aggressively publishing all their
data instead of worrying about how to stonewall their critics." The committee
criticised the university for the way that freedom of information requests
were handled, and for failing to give adequate support to the scientists to
deal with such requests.[90]

The committee chairman Phil Willis said that the "standard practice" in
climate science generally of not routinely releasing all raw data and computer
codes "needs to change and it needs to change quickly". Jones had admitted
sending "awful emails"; Willis commented that "[Jones] probably wishes that
emails were never invented," but "apart from that we do believe that Prof.
Jones has in many ways been scapegoated as a result of what really was a
frustration on his part that people were asking for information purely to
undermine his research."[33] In Willis' view this did not excuse any failure
to deal properly with FOI Act requests, but the committee accepted that Jones
had released all the data that he could.[33] It stated: "There is no reason
why Professor Jones should not resume his post. He was certainly not co-
operative with those seeking to get data, but that was true of all the climate
scientists".[91]

The committee was careful to point out that its report had been written after
a single day of oral testimony and would not be as in-depth as other
inquiries.[89]

\------------------------------------------------------------

Is there a convincing evidence-based part in there that I'm missing?

\------------------------------------------------------------

\------------------------------------------------------------

Science Assessment Panel

The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14
April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any
deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research
Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and
had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective
and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was
no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim
was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as
possible."[61]

The panel commented that it was "very surprising that research in an area that
depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close
collaboration with professional statisticians." It found that although the CRU
had not made inappropriate use of statistical methods, some of the methods
used may not have been the best for the purpose, though it said that "it is
not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly
different results." It suggested that the CRU could have done more to document
and archive its work, data and algorithms and stated that the scientists were
"ill prepared" for the amount of public attention generated by their work,
commenting that "as with many small research groups their internal procedures
were rather informal." The media and other scientific organisations were
criticised for having "sometimes neglected" to reflect the uncertainties,
doubts and assumptions of the work done by the CRU. The UK Government's policy
of charging for access to scientific data was described as "inconsistent with
policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere." The panel was also stated
that "Although we deplore the tone of much of the criticism that has been
directed at CRU, we believe that this questioning of the methods and data used
in dendroclimatology will ultimately have a beneficial effect and improve
working practices." It found that some of the criticism had been "selective
and uncharitable" and critics had displayed "a lack of awareness" of the
difficulties of research in this area.[61]

Speaking at a press conference to announce the report, the panel's chair, Lord
Oxburgh, stated that his team had found "absolutely no evidence of any
impropriety whatsoever" and that "whatever was said in the emails, the basic
science seems to have been done fairly and properly." He said that many of the
criticisms and allegations of scientific misconduct had been made by people
"who do not like the implications of some of the conclusions" reached by the
CRU's scientists. He said that the repeated FOI requests made by climate
change sceptic Steve McIntyre and others could have amounted to a campaign of
harassment, and the issue of how FOI laws should be applied in an academic
context remained unresolved.[92] Another panel member, Professor David Hand,
commended the CRU for being explicit about the inherent uncertainties in its
research data, commenting that "there is no evidence of anything underhand –
the opposite, if anything, they have brought out into the open the
uncertainties with what they are dealing with."[93]

At the press conference, Hand also commented on the well publicised 1998 paper
produced in the United States by scientists led by Michael E. Mann, saying
that the hockey stick graph it showed was a genuine effect, but he had an
"uneasy feeling" about the use of "inappropriate statistical tools" and said
that the 1998 study had exaggerated the effect. He commended McIntyre for
pointing out this issue. Mann subsequently told The Guardian that the study
had been examined and approved in the US National Academies of Science North
Report, and described Hand's comment as a "rogue opinion" not meriting "much
attention or credence".[92]

The UEA's vice-chancellor, Edward Acton, welcomed the panel's findings.
Describing its report as "hugely positive", he stated that "it is especially
important that, despite a deluge of allegations and smears against the CRU,
this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that
there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice."[94] He criticised the
way that the emails had been misrepresented, saying that "UEA has already put
on record its deep regret and anger that the theft of emails from the
University, and the blatant misrepresentation of their contents as revealed
both in this report and the previous one by the Science and Technology Select
Committee, damaged the reputation of UK climate science."[95] The UEA issued a
statement in which it accepted that "things might have been done better." It
said that improvements had already been undertaken by the CRU and others in
the climate science community and that the University would "continue to
ensure that these imperatives are maintained."[96]

It later emerged that the Science Assessment Panel was not assessing the
quality but instead the integrity of the CRU's science. Phil Willis described
this a "sleight of hand" and was not what the Parliamentary Committee he had
chaired had been led to believe. There were also questions about the selection
of publications examined by the panel.[97] Lord Oxburgh said that Acton had
been wrong to tell the Science and Technology Select Committee in March that
his inquiry would look into the science itself. "I think that was inaccurate,"
Oxburgh said. "This had to be done rapidly. This was their concern. They
really wanted something within a month. There was no way our panel could
evaluate the science."[98]

\------------------------------------------------------------

Rather than reducing my mistrust, this one has increased it.

\------------------------------------------------------------

\------------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe basing your opinion on climate science on "some email leak [you] can't
> recall the name [of]" isn't ideal?

It certainly isn't, lucky I'm not doing that: "This and many other similar
things _do not give me a feeling of trust that everything is on the up and
up._ "

Maybe completely misinterpreting the words and intentions of anyone who dares
disagree with the orthodoxy isn't an ideal approach. How's the consensus
building going in your opinion?

~~~
ceejayoz
Rather than raw copy/pasting a good portion of the entire Wikipedia entry,
would you care to highlight _specifics_ you're interested in discussing?

~~~
mistermann
It sounds like standard head patting assurances to me, I'd there anything in
there beyond claims that all is well, which was the same story prior to the
email leak?

Is all of the data and calculations now open sourced so the matter is
permanently put to rest?

~~~
ceejayoz
> Is all of the data and calculations now open sourced so the matter is
> permanently put to rest?

Yes (with the exception of 19 Polish stations, for reasons the Poles didn't
disclose). [https://www.bbc.com/news/science-
environment-14315747](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14315747)

~~~
mistermann
That article contains no references to code that performs the calculations.

These sorts of discussions don't do much for increasing my confidence level
that statements in the media or forums should be taken at face value.

~~~
uhhhhhhh
After reading this thread, the problem you have is YOU.

I'm not trying to be critical or a dick. Your argument is "I don't have the
information, and random sources I didn't dig into cast aspersions and make me
think things are not as straightforward, I want to see the data etc..."

The solution is TO GO LOOK AT THE DATA!. There are hundreds if not thousands
of studies with methods laid out in detail, data provided for you with
information on collection, manipulation etc... Everything you're asking for to
be "more informed" exists, but your not actually out there reading it
obviously, you're here claiming you want the data that is available and
accessible simply by starting on google and working your way through it to
educate yourself.

Ignore the media, ignore those 'email leaks' and other BS you're seeing. Read
the actual studies look at the actual information.

Or alternatively you can go to the experts that do all of that and look at
their point of view, which is overwhelmingly that while the models might not
be as accurate as we'd like all the time, the trend and future direction and
many of the eventual outcomes of those changes are predictable.

Furthermore, climate change scientists have been beating this drum for 3
decades. As they predicted and we ignored, We're in the middle of an
extinction event where we're seeing massive die-offs in multiple areas of the
ecosystem, sea level rise and temperature rise is already happening and
visible/quantifiable, increased storms, flooding and fire is already part of
our lives.

To still deny the scientists who have been largely right for 30 years+, to
ignore the actual evidence published while demanding "more evidence" and to
deny the climate changes and the causes (significantly: us) as we've well
established is at best ignorant, at worst malicious.

Do the research, do the reading. Inform yourself instead of demanding others
inform you while casting aspersions on scientists based on media and rumors.

------
dawg-
Interesting. It's unfortunate that this will be used as ammunition for climate
skeptics.

It seems that ice cliffs are very different than ice sheets - the things
currently melting. Ice cliffs were previously supposed to account for up to 6
feet of sea level rise, instead of the much more toned-down projections we
have seen in the last few years.

The subtle distinction between ice cliffs and ice sheets will be lost in the
media re-telling of this. Sometimes I wonder if science can ever truly be put
to work for mass society? It seems not.

~~~
vfc1
Yes, I can already see all the articles saying that the meltdown of the ice
sheets is "not that bad after all", even though the melting is on record
levels in the last few years.

This is why even in the age of the Internet, it's going to take decades until
the measures that actually need to be taken to combat climate change to be put
in place.

By then we will be well above the 1.5 degrees rise in temperature, and
population north of 10 billion.

~~~
chrisco255
We don't control the climate. The climate is a non-linear dynamic system.
There are dozens of natural cycles that control the climate (AMO, PDO, ENSO,
solar cycles, to name a few). And all predictions of catastrophic, runaway
warming have failed to materialize in the 21st century despite over 30 years
of doomsday predictions. We've seen maybe a 0.13C per decade increase in
temps. Well within cyclical norms. Our understanding of the climate has to be
driven by facts on the ground and not computer models and hype.

We still do not have good models for understanding or predicting global low
cloud cover. Clouds are hugely important to our climate system. There is no
way to accurately predict the temperature in the future, especially 100 years
into the future, without modeling fundamental and extremely complex systems.
Our current models do not match reality or even closely approximate it.

~~~
moultano
Honestly where do you get this stuff? It's like time-cube level of nuttery.

~~~
rimliu
Which claim is nuttery?

1\. Getting clouds right is extremely important for the climate models. 2\. We
still do not know how to get clouds right.

~~~
hanniabu
Well for one there's contradicting comments. First saying that there has been
warming every decade, but then saying that's somehow cyclical (warming and
cooling cycle) when it's really a trend (continuous warming). Then saying we
need facts and not computer models, but then going on to saying we need
computer models.

------
dominicr
A lot of people are going to read only the headline and shout "MIT says global
warming isn't true" into their science denial bubbles!

From my reading of this, the study does not say that sea-level rise won't
happen, it's just saying one theoretical mechanism for RAPID sea-level rise
might not be correct, so it'll be slower than some models predict.

The study relates to ice cliffs on land and the theory that if the ice shelves
in the sea break apart, then the ice cliffs on land will break apart rapidly,
contributing to rapid sea-level rise. Ice already in the sea doesn't raise
sea-levels but ice currently on land would. The study uses modelling to
demonstrate that runaway event is unlikely, so the sea-level rise from that
even should be removed from estimates.

There's another paper about this from
February_:[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0901-4](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0901-4)

Some quotes from the papers:

\- "We’re saying that scenario, based on cliff failure, is probably not going
to play out. That’s something of a silver lining. That said, we have to be
careful about breathing a sigh of relief. There are plenty of other ways to
get rapid sea-level rise."

\- Ice cliff collapse... "is not required to reproduce sea-level changes due
to Antarctic ice loss ... without it we find that the projections agree with
previous studies (all 95th percentiles are less than 43 centimetres)."

A couple more things:

\- Both papers still agree that sea-level rise will happen, but maybe not so
fast and not so much. (Whether your house is under one foot of water or two
doesn't make much difference to if you can live there.)

\- If your discussion point against climate change is based on the models
being wrong/inaccurate/too varied, then you have to discount this evidence, as
it too is based on modelling.

\- MIT's press department need to write better headlines.

~~~
rimliu

       > A lot of people are going to read only the headline and
       > shout "MIT says global warming isn't true" into their
       > science denial bubbles!
    

This is an example of the extremely informed and scientific claim.

------
tito
Let's build an interactive display of different models. Like
Coinbase.com/charts but for climate models.

You can check and uncheck various factors (ice sheets, greenland, methane
tundra).

Interesting?

~~~
kempbellt
Does one already exist? I know there are some for C02 emissions and other
useful stats. I am certainly interested in seeing a tool like this.

~~~
tito
I haven't seen anything useful

For example, this looks like it was designed on the Apple II

[https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/climate-bathtub-
sim...](https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/climate-bathtub-simulation/)

------
AnIdiotOnTheNet
ITT: A lot of people with no education in climate science proportioning to
understand the climate better than the vast majority of climate scientists.

~~~
raarts
Of course the many people calling themselves climate scientists only know
about programming computer models.

~~~
kaybe
You'd wish, have you seen the code of scientific models?

Coding is one of the things you just pick up on the way, while physics etc is
taught formally.

------
nerdponx
What % of overall sea level rise predictions did this effect contribute? Do we
still have to worry about New York and other coastal cities being inundated in
the next few decades, or not?

~~~
hannob
You still have to worry. This is one study, not a final word on the topic,
there's considerable uncertainty in this area. Notably recent numbers indicate
that Greenland melting is worse than predicted.

~~~
tropo
No, I don't have to worry. That would make me unhappy.

Worry is bad for your health. Don't worry about far-off uncertain things that
are out of your control. It'd just get you down, paranoid and freaking out,
when you could instead focus on the things that matter in life.

------
hackeraccount
I get suspicous when people start shouting and screaming that the only way to
do anything about climate change is X - where X might or might not reduce
greenhouse gases but definately aligns with there politial prirors.

I also don't like the fact that these same people seem to have no respect at
all for economic growth. I firmly believe that any realy solution will be an
encouragement to growth not a discouragement.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Economic growth? How does the imaginary game of wealth-points intersect with
preserving the planet's ecosystem?

I can imagine many scenarios for saving the planet, that are detrimental to
human interests. Nuke all major population centers, for instance. Ban burning
oil entirely. Begin sequestering all crops in the bottom of the ocean as CO2
sinks.

To confuse human trivia with planetary disaster is one of the first refuges of
naive deniers - "Well, we sure can't go without our cars, don't be
ridiculous!"

------
yters
> Scientists have assumed that ice cliffs taller than 90 meters (about the
> height of the Statue of Liberty) would rapidly collapse under their own
> weight, contributing to more than 6 feet of sea-level rise by the end of the
> century — enough to completely flood Boston and other coastal cities.

If I understand correctly, these are icebergs. I don't understand how melting
icebergs should impact the sea level in the first place. If I melt an ice cube
in a cup the water lever remains unchanged. Don't the icebergs already
displace as much water as they would contribute? Is there something about
icebergs that mean they displace less water, or am I somehow misunderstanding
what is going on?

~~~
moultano
This is describing cliffs of ice on land, like the Antarctic and Greenland ice
sheets. The worry this paper is investigating is whether those could rapidly
collapse ones the sea ice that protects it calves off.

~~~
sp332
And in addition to the ice moving from land to water, the land will be less
compressed by the weight of ice above it and will rise, displacing even more
water.

------
hlesesne
I may be completely missing something, but I was under the impression that
floating ice has zero impact on sea levels - a unique characteristic of water.
Ice floating in water in a cup already at the top won’t overflow when it
melts. It seems like only land-supported ice sheets would have any impact at
all anyway. Where were they getting the 6 foot rise in the first place? The
violent water displacement when the cliff falls?

~~~
moultano
The article is about land ice.

------
ltbarcly3
For hundreds of years there have been people predicting some kind of nightmare
scenario 'in about 30 years'. In the 1960's and 1970's they were predicting a
new ice age, that oil would completely run out, etc etc.

More recently they have been predicting extremely rapid climate change, global
warming, 'cities underwater', etc.

Look at the graph of anticipated sea level rise:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise)

Notice anything suspicious? It goes along pretty flat (the historical data
looks as linear as it could possibly be), then as soon as you get to right now
it jumps up and to the right with exponential growth. If a startup pitched
that growth trajectory everyone would know exactly what was going on - high
hopes and lies. Except that well meaning idiots have been pitching this for
the last 30 years, exponential up and to the right growth of temperature and
sea level, and it never materializes. Every few years they just update the
graphs to show the small increase that actually occurred and move the
exponential explosion so it's always in the near future.

Edit: I have noticed people down-voting this comment, that's fine of course,
but I wonder whether it's because you think the oceans are going to start
rising exponentially - starting right now - or if you think it's dangerous to
question climate change dogma because it empowers climate change deniers or
something? Or are you just down-voting it because it seems like something you
don't like?

~~~
raarts
Well, I'm with you on sea level rise. I live in The Netherlands. Big part of
our country is below sea level, millions of people actually. Recently
Deltares, the body that advises the government on the height of our dikes
released a 187-page report on sea level rise. Using the newest methods, they
found that sea level has been rising at a constant rate (1.8mm/yr) for > 125
years now, and the sea level rise is NOT accelerating. I trust these people,
since they are responsible for millions of lives.

Of course IPCC climate models are projecting acceleration, but those are just
models. And past sea level rise acceleration projections have obviously been
wrong so far.

I clearly remember over the course of my life reading about climate
catastrophes, scientists being in consensus about it, it never came true, and
I don't believe it now.

~~~
itcrowd
You need to read the report more closely. First, it describes only the Dutch
sea level rise, not the global sea level. Second, the most important _reason_
that the sea level rise is that "the Netherlands is located in one of the
least affected areas [of sea level rise] in the world. 9cm/century [of sea
level rise] has not influenced the Netherlands, but has been observed around
the equator" [1, from the summary]

[1] The report is here (in Dutch)
[https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/faq-
zeespiegelmo...](https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/faq-
zeespiegelmonitor-2018-.pdf)

~~~
raarts
Yes, I've had that comment more often. My standard answer is that if sea level
rise is accelerating somewhere on the planet, it should be accelerating
everywhere. The sea level rise itself may differ per location, but logic
dictates that an acceleration should be visible everywhere.

Note that sea level rise differs across the globe for many reasons, land
sinking being one of them. For example, sea levels are dropping in Sweden,
because the land is rising.

~~~
itcrowd
> if sea level rise is accelerating somewhere on the planet, it should be
> accelerating everywhere.

If you mean "accelerating upwards" then it is completely wrong. Sea level gets
lower near large icebergs (e.g. the arctic). As the ice from the pole melts,
the gravitational pull of the ice mass decreases and water is displaced to
areas further from the pole.

As for your Sweden comment, I don't see how it is relevant. Please explain

~~~
raarts
I said 'sea level rise', not 'sea level'.

Sweden was just an example of a place where sea level is dropping.

~~~
itcrowd
Maybe I'm confused with what you're saying, please correct me where I
misinterpret what you mean.

On a global scale, the sea-level is rising [1] and the sea-level increase is
itself increasing (i.e. accelerating). This can also be seen in [1]. That does
NOT mean that the change is uniform over the globe. You can check your locale
here [2] (and confirm that Sweden's sea level is getting lower, the
Netherlands slightly rising).

Globally, sea level rise IS accelerating [3].

Coming back to your claim that "if sea level rise is accelerating somewhere on
the planet, it should be accelerating everywhere". Please explain why there
could not be some (the Netherlands? hypothetical?) place where the the sea
level rise does not increase even if more water is added to the system? This
IS possible but the water must go somewhere else, i.e. the acceleration will
be stronger in other regions (for example, Manilla).

[1] [https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-
level/](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/)

[2]
[https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html](https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html)

[3] [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-
se...](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-
rise-accelerating)

~~~
raarts
You are confusing 'sea level rise increasing' with 'sea level rise increase
acceleration'. Of course when a lot of water enters the ocean sea level rises
everywhere. The amount to which it rises may not be the same everywhere, for
example due to gravity differences. But as far as the 'acceleration of sea
level rise' is concerned, that _has_ to be visible everywhere.

An example. Suppose due to melting ice sea level rises 1 mm at the Dutch
coast. Let's entertain the possibility that in Australia this results in 1,1
mm. Let's say this happens every year. Eventually this correlation will break,
but for the sake of argument let's assume it doesn't. Now, when ice starts
melting faster and faster, the sea level rise at the Dutch coast grows to 1.5
mm each year. This is sea level rise accelerating. Now, it is _very_ unlikely
that the rise in Australia stays at 1.1 mm each year and will not accelerate.
That is why I say that if sea level rise is accelerating, it should show up
every where. Hence if the rise isn't accelerating on the Dutch coast, it isn't
accelerating anywhere.

Sea level rise isn't the same everywhere, but _acceleration_ of that yearly
rise should show up everywhere in some form.

~~~
itcrowd
Thank you for expanding on your thoughts. I now understand what you mean,
however, I do believe you are wrong. Look at source [3] above. Sea level rise
is accelerating globally. The effects are different locally.

~~~
raarts
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-
lev...](https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/)
[2] [http://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2019/10/illustrating-
the-c...](http://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2019/10/illustrating-the-
corruption-in-climate-science.html)

~~~
itcrowd
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
I just noticed that you linked the summary of the report, the actual report is
here:
[https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonito...](https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonitor-2018-final.pdf)

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
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=PL82yk73N8e...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-
Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=2&t=0s)

~~~
raarts
> 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
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-
lo...](https://abruptearthchanges.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/no-long-term-
correlation-between-co2-and-temperature.jpg?w=829))

~~~
raarts
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.

~~~
itcrowd
I am glad you're willing to educate yourself. I hope to give you at least a
starting point and will try to address the points you made.

1) Regarding the correlations: The reason why you don't "see" the correlation
(i.e. the lines don't perfectly overlap) if you plot CO2 and average global
temperature is because there are other effects that obscure the correlation.
For example, on the scales of 500 million years, the power coming from the sun
(solar luminosity) has increased [1]. Milankovitch cycles are also important
over longer timescales. Albedo changes of Earth's surface, etc. I have already
cited the principle control knob paper. If you don't agree with the results,
we can discuss that but, if so, please give some arguments instead of "I don't
believe it".

2) "CO2 lags temperature": this is true in some cases. Vostok ice core is
often cited and indeed the authors point to a ~1000 year difference between
CO2 and temperature [2]. A more recent analysis [3] goes into more detail on a
global sample. They find that on average, CO2 leads temperature but in the
southern hemisphere, temperature leads CO2. This lag can be explained by ocean
circulation changes.

3) "multiple periods of warming and cooling in the last 1000 years, that were
just as bad or worse as what we're in now": A landmark paper was released this
year reconstructing the global temperatures in the last 2000 years [4] and
they concluded the current warming is global and warmer than ever. Other warm
periods in the last 2000 years were simply a) not as warm AND/OR b) not
global. One image says it all [5].

4) Record cold not reported? I get a lot of search results from mainstream
outlets when searching [6]. Of course, one cold/warm year does not
disprove/prove global warming, but you know that. Also, weather and climate
are different but you also know that. Popsci did an article explaining how
this cold can be interpreted [7].

[1] For a short explanation, see Wikipedia:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_luminosity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_luminosity)

[2] "CO2‐climate relationship as deduced from the Vostok ice core: a
re‐examination based on new measurements and on a re‐evaluation of the air
dating",
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1600-0889....](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1991.t01-1-00002.x)

[3] "Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
during the last deglaciation",
[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915)

[4] "No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the
preindustrial Common Era",
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2"](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2")

[5] Image from [4] [https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-
static/image/...](https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-
static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-019-1401-2/MediaObjects/41586_2019_1401_Fig3_HTML.png?as=webp)

[6]
[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=record+cold+2019](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=record+cold+2019)

[7] [https://www.popsci.com/cold-weather-climate-
change/](https://www.popsci.com/cold-weather-climate-change/)

------
tito
Here's the academic paper the article references:
[https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019...](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL084183)

Not showing up on Scihub tho. Anyone found it?

------
neom
Articles like this should discuss how the impact it does have contributes to
the whole, climate change is a feedback loop.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback)

------
cerealbad
regional hegemons enforce embargoes on nations which refuse to behave
according to new standards. a carbon non-proliferation treaty backed with
coordinated blockades and cyber-attacks of critical infrastructure, initiating
limited civil wars. the top level view is mutual cooperation to avoid global
catastrophe.

this would require america and russia to stop selling their terrestrial
missile technology and fossil fuels to the rest of world. once the current
generation of inventory and raw energy is cleared it, orbital space based
weapons can be deployed, obsolescing land and sea nuclear delivery and
defense. this might explain china and india's rush to space, in order to have
a bargaining chip in the future discussion about their territorial and energy
sovereignty it is necessary for them to have a significant presence in low
earth orbit.

things typically don't escalate dramatically during international disputes,
and it's likely that the russians and americans will just use blackmail
diplomacy to freeze, then develop the rest of the world with new energy they
control. in order to avoid public scrutiny it's important to paint this as a
critical emergency rather than a strategic sharing of influence between
continental superpowers.

i suspect this will play out slowly over the next century, all the while
regular people will be cowed by the ever looming threat of total extinction.
not a very original sequel, a real throwback your parents might enjoy, cold
war 2: fight the heat. the science on anything hardly matters, since
scientific truth is subservient to pragmatism and political realities. given
the massive investment in government information collection, it is clear that
any large popular movement would quickly be steered towards desired policy
goals, which should reinforce some version of the above story i laid out.

------
alwaysanagenda
the hubris of man is that we have enough data to understand the earth at any
given moment.

[https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0](https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0)

~~~
Udik
Excellent find. Key quote:

"The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will
rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown."

Dated June 30, 1989

Global temperature anomaly 2018: +0.83 Celsius

[https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4626](https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4626)

~~~
rebuilder
The low estimate seems to have been on the money.

~~~
jtbayly
Didn't even break onto the chart for the lowest number in the lowest
estimates. I wouldn't call that "on the money."

~~~
zipwitch
Was Brown predicting a rise in Celsius or Fahrenheit? The article doesn't say.
(And we are up by ~1.5 degrees Fahrenheit.)

