Yet another "Mistake" by the AGW "Scientists"

[RobMoney$]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall



Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown.

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/full/ngeo587.html), one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol (http://www.gly.bris.ac.uk/people/siddall.html), said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results (http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6484.html)". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.
Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full.pdf) that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.
Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.
Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.
"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."
Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html), said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.
The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/full/ngeo587.html)" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/29/climate-science-2009) to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.
In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.
"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."
In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".



More evidence of errors/fraud continue to surface.
At some point even ardent AGW believers would need to at least allow for the possibility that AGW is false.
The "flooding the earth" line has been one of the biggest fear-mongering tactics of the pro-AGW "scientists".
This retraction puts a big part of that into question.

[yeahwho]

Is it a mistake, an error or fraud? Should reports of rising sea waters all be ignored now and the scientific community studying the ocean and atmosphere hauled off to some sort of legal court?


What can we do as citizens to make sure all information is accurately presented and reported by the IPCC?

The recent news of Yvo de Boer at the IPCC (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c9ee09b0-1fe7-11df-8deb-00144feab49a.html)criticism of the organization has reached a fevered peak.

I think this is the best thing to happen in the past two decades since the inception of the IPCC because not only does this keep the topic of Climate Change in the forefront, it also keeps those who are skeptical on game and right up in the scientists faces.

[HAL 9000]

Good to see the peer review process working effectively

[RobMoney$]

It's more than just the peer review process though, Hal.
This thing is crumbling from the inside, out.

http://www.climategate.com/top-climatologist-openly-breaks-with-climategate-conspirators



The edifice crumbles: top climatologist openly breaks with Climategate conspirators


Further damning revelations are pouring in from the gaping wound that has inflicted the fast unraveling theory of the green monster that is man made global warming. As reported today by By Marc Morano of Climate Depot, Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has split ranks with other members of the discredited “hockey team” of climatologists exposed for fraudulently hiding and destroying data in the Climategate scandal that broke on November 19, 2009.

Christy served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed in these new revelations he explains how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes. But he fell from favour for proposing that the IPCC allow for well-credentialed climate scientists to craft a chapter on an alternative view presenting evidence for low climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007.
Christy’s statements carry even more weight when we examine the considerable pressure also being applied to him to keep quiet about the cracks appearing in the dodgy science dossiers being churned out for the IPCC. We get an insight into the conspiracy of secrecy Christy was opposing as he is one of the climatologists whose leaked emails are part of the Climategate scandal.
In the leaked CRU email dated Thu, 24 May 2001 11:33, Michael Mann was critical of Christy and scolded him for publicly showing dissent for not agreeing with Mann that 20th century temperatures were higher than the Medieval warm period:
“So do I [Mann] understand correctly that you are referring to the results of Dahl-Jensen et al as conflicting with what we say in the chapter? At the face of it, this argument has no merit whatsoever. I think we should all use a better explanation from you, since you seem to be arguing publically that the Dahl-Jensen et al record undermines what we’ve said in the chapter.”
Professor Phil Jones again tries to indicate the peer pressure they are all under not to make public admissions damaging to their ever more flawed theory in an email sent to Christy dated Tue Jul 5, 2005;
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
The unrelenting peer pressure being applied to Christy continues, this time coming from Michael Mann. Climatologists, Neville Nichols and Phil Jones discuss the issue in another leaked CRU email dated Wed Jul 6 15:07:45 2005.
“I know I [Nichols] could have asked John [Christy] about all of this, but I suspect he feels a bit over-burdened and harassed at the moment, and I didn’t want to add to the pressure on him, so thanks for passing this stuff on to me.”
Further emails substantiate that the “hockey team” were systematically applying peer pressure to convince Christy that recent weather balloon data (out of kilt with dodgy ground thermometer readings) was, itself in error.
Phil Jones admits, “the sondes [weather balloons] clearly show too much cooling in the stratosphere.”
The fact weather balloons were detecting cooling rather than warming in the tropical stratosphere was a key signal that the whole theory of anthropogenic global warming was probably wrong. Thus, to avoid embarrassment the “hockey team” rounded on Christy to conspire to suppress these facts.
Professor Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces “a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. “An alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added. ‘The reception to my comments was especially cold’

[yeahwho]

I like the writing style, a bit of hyperbole.

The edifice crumbles: top climatologist openly breaks with Climategate conspirators

Further damning revelations are pouring in from the gaping wound that has inflicted the fast unraveling theory of the green monster that is man made global warming.

Anyway the key figure in the above article, Dr. John Christy is also on record stating in an interview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy#Status_and_views) with National Public Radio about the new American Geophysical Union statement, he said:

"It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

[RobMoney$]

Just to be that guy, doesn't water take up LESS space when it goes from a solid to a liquid anyway?
Shouldn't the AGW'ers be advocating ocean recession?

[RobMoney$]

The Donald advocates for Al's Nobel prize to be stripped from him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijvO5DqUkOc&feature=player_embedded#)

[yeahwho]

LMAO. Donald Trump? C'mon, he has 0 credibility in any scientific sense.

[HAL 9000]

Just to be that guy, doesn't water take up LESS space when it goes from a solid to a liquid anyway?
Shouldn't the AGW'ers be advocating ocean recession?


I assume you are joking, but for clarity Antarctica is a continent so its ice sits on land. While arctic ice limits the rise in sea temperature (for the same reason ice in a drink keeps it cool - energy absorbed in the water is used to change the physical state of the ice rather than heat the water). Once it is melted, there is less holding down the sea and air temp.

Melted ice represents a massive store of potential energy, the melting process takes actual heat energy and turns it into this potential energy. Once this heat energy to potential energy process stops the heat energy just warms the air.

You are correct in saying that melting floating ice would not cause sea levels to rise. They would actually stay the same because Archimedes Principle shows that the mass of displaced water is equal to the mass of the ice so while ice is less dense than water, its additional volume is above the water line anyway.

[RobMoney$]

Those last two posts were made tongue in cheek. ;)

[DroppinScience]

Bill Nye taught me everything about science growing up, so I'd take his assertions about climage change seriously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/23/bill-nye-joe-bastardi-deb_n_473370.html

[saz]

robmoney's got "life experience", so we should trust everything he says, from his unrelenting support of sarah palin, that obama = hitler, and that climate change isn't real.

i imagine that evolution and gravity are next.

[RobMoney$]

1.I'm not saying anything.
I'm merely appealing to the authority of scientists who are discrediting the AGW theory.

2. Yes, I'm soo over-the-top about Palin.
As if the failure of a president you're unrelentingly supporting is any better.

3. Quickly, link us to where I said Obama is Hitler or be man enough to apologize.

4. Again, I never said climate change isn't real, I'm merely echoing the science that says MAN-MADE climate change, or Anthropogenic Global Warming, or AGW, isn't very likely.

I've shared as much scientific evidence to support my opinion as anyone has to support AGW.
I understand that's it's a blow to one's ego to have to admit that they were wrong about something because they were lied to by people they once trusted.
But fuck your ego.
Get over it and realize that there's not a thing that man can do to affect the climate of the earth.
We are not even a pimple on the ass of the life of the earth or it's atmosphere.

[saz]

you ardently defended that loon on here and don't even attempt to deny it. and no, i'm not an "unrelenting" supporter of a corporate tool like obama.

here (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=92656) you go.

this isn't about "ego", but rather being manipulated by those who are on the take of exxon-mobil and the fossil fuel industry. but hey, if you want to live in a fantasy world, be my guest.

[RobMoney$]

comparing to Hitler = Obama IS Hitler.

FAIL

[yeahwho]

The whole Obama is a failure thing is not working, speaking points usually reverberate a little longer if they have substance. I've noticed that real substance on Climate Change and real substance on our Health Care failures are never honestly presented by those with political ambition, they attack the people who are delivering the message and doing something.

The thing is, nobody is cutting and running because those who choose to ignore or scandalize the science. There are two dynamics happening in the Climate Change scenario which appear obvious to anyone who follows this even on the most basic level. The situation remains the same, glaciers around the globe continue to melt at high rates, higher rates than at any time since being measured with extreme accuracy since 1894. The temperatures have risen worldwide and the last decade is the hottest decade since modern records have been kept. Coincidentally that disturbing CO2ppm number has risen annually too, right along with the population.

You can make whatever correlation you would like with the above information. Industries whose bottomline will be effected by our recognition of this phenomena would like you to think climate change is a political issue, they spend millions upon millions of dollars ferociously fighting any sort of regulation that stops their profits.

Either way I see no gray area. One side has is studying and presenting documentation while the other side is basically denying this. Those who deny the current information seem more than a bit off. More than just a bit off.

[RobMoney$]

The temperatures have risen worldwide and the last decade is the hottest decade since modern records have been kept.


Absolutely Wrong.
Check your facts.

On second thought, don't bother, you'll most likely refer to some info given to you from an obviously slanted source.

[yeahwho]

Absolutely Wrong.
Check your facts.

On second thought, don't bother, you'll most likely refer to some info given to you from an obviously slanted source.

So you have some pretty reliable sources, other than NASA? Lets just start with a middle of the road source (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=aGrQBM3eQjx0) then fact check them with the actual agency (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/) you have declared as Absolutely Wrong (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121b/).

You are going to have to cook up some lower numbers and theories, I'm just not taking your word for it.