moreadsense

Please Hit

There are MANY expenses associated with running this site, computers, wifi cards, travel to debates and conferences, purchase of research, etc.

Despite what the progressives say, I receive no funding from the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, or the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy.

The only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers.

Folks PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going.

Hit the Tip Jar (it's on the left-hand column).

Sunday, February 21, 2010

OOPS Never-mind! Climate Scientists Withdraw IPCC-Related Article Claiming Sea is Rising

“No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline,” Said President Obama at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh last year.
The President forgot to mention that ever since the last ice-age 10,000 years ago, sea levels have been rising. So unless the Neanderthals imitating Al Gore and flying private jets and driving gas guzzlers, rising sea levels are not caused by global warming but by natural phenomena.

Last year two scientists published a paper which said the ocean rise was accelerating and unless we did something about global warming the sea levels would rise by up to 82cm (32 1/3 inches) by the end of century. But "OOPS they were were wrong, the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown so the report was withdrawn.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 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, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". 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 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, 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" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements 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".
Anybody know if Wal-Mart will allow me to return that SCUBA gear I bought last year when the rising ocean report first came out?This is getting a bit silly, its time for the IPCC to post this video of Gilda Ratner's Emly Litella on their site:

1 comment:

jfjmurphy said...

I believe you are in danger of overplaying your satisfaction at this retraction.

In their original paper, Siddall, Stocker & Clark had stated :

"In response to the minimum (1.1C) and maximum (6.4C) warming projected for AD2100 by the IPCC models, our model predicts 7 and 82cm of sea-level rise by the end of the twenty-first century, respectively."
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo587.html


Vermeer & Rahmstorf, however, stated in their contemporaneous paper :

"For future global temperature scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report, the relationship projects a sea-level rise ranging from 75 to 190 cm for the period 1990–2100."
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full.pdf

That means that they are predicting a FAR LARGER rise.

Now, Siddall admits they may well be wrong and states :

"We thank S. Rahmstorf and M. Vermeer for bringing these issues to our attention."
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo780.html

Siddall et al's (lower) projection withdrawn; Rahmstorf & Vermeer's (higher) not.
What does that tell you ?