From the Guardian, finally some refreshing honesty in Science:
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
The Maldives – poster child for bad science Photograph: Reuters
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, 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.
…
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.
h/t Claude Harvey
Justin (01:02:45) :
I believe some of your questions have been asked by others but Robert seems a little shy of admitting to any actual qualifications in the field of climate science.
Just for the record I have none. I may also be a little thick, because I have not actually understood what Robert is getting at in recent posts – perhaps he could be a little more to the point in future.
Støre / Gore cited Rahmstorf (2007) in their Copenhagen report : Melting sea and ice: a call for action. It predicts a sea level rise of 0,5 – 1,5 meters by 2100. Støre then went on to say in his presentation that “scientists are conservative, the real figure could be 2 meters by 2100” 🙂 So much for science.
A little sidetrack regarding northern hemisphere snow extent: the Støre/Gore report also states that northern hemisphere snow cover is decreasing, stating:
“This decreasing trend is occurring throughout the year, particularly during spring and summer, with exceptions only mid-winter” (ref: Armstrong/Brun 2007).
A masterpiece of deceptive writing.
As we all know – most places in the northern hemisphere only has snow during winter. The only place with summer snow cover is the arctic. So a slight decline of summer snow in the arctic has now become a general trend of snow decrease for the whole northern hemisphere.
And the snow cover extent in winter (and fall) is increasing in the northern hemisphere. A fact conveniently left out.
The report can be downloaded here:
http://brage.bibsys.no/npolar/handle/URN:NBN:no-bibsys_brage_10762
GaryPearse (02:16:53) :
Alexandria was burned was burned by the romans and sacked several times before christianity arrived on the scene. The libel that christians burned the library there is just that – a libel. False. Misleading at bes, given that at the time the library was claimed to have been burned, it was almost non-existent. In fact most of the library that survived the previous (pre-christian) sackings of Alexandria was distributed around the Roman empire and most of what survived ended up in Rome.
The belief that the world was flat was a minority view throughout christian times and well before. The myth that the church claimed the world was flat was put about less than 150 years ago by anti-catholics here in England an quickly soaked into the popular consciousness, but it was just a myth. The geocentric model of the universe adopted by the church and based on pre-christian beliefs, whilst incorrect in itself, was based on the assumption that the earth was a sphere. It wouldn’t have worked otherwise.
Robert (23:38:58) :
I find it amusing that the community here glorifies “skepticism” — attacking the science on climate in the face of near-universal disagreement from climate scientists — yet if anyone dares question THEM — well, that person is clearly a troll.
Well, when “that person” persists in using AGW talking points to refute *measured* scientific data…
I wonder if Rahmstorf will retract his 1.9 m scientific prognosis?
Here’s a backdoor you can drive locomotive thru: From: http://www.farmpolicy.com/?p=1930
Environmental Regulation (NEPA) and the Farm Bill
Noelle Straub of Greenwire reported on Friday at The New York Times Online that, “A top Obama administration official yesterday defended a new draft proposal that will require federal agencies to consider climate change during environmental analyses of proposed projects as ‘straightforward, common-sense guidance.’
“Under the draft guidance released yesterday by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, agencies will have to consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change effects when carrying out National Environmental Policy Act reviews. CEQ will take public comment for 90 days on the proposal.”
Friday’s article added that, “‘I think there was really no question that there are environmental effects associated with climate change, and how could we not have that as part of agencies’ thinking as they look at their NEPA obligations and looking at environmental impacts?’ Sutley told E&E. ‘I think what we’ve tried to craft is some very straightforward, common-sense guidance.’
“Agencies will need to look at emissions that may be produced by projects such as a landfill or coal-fired power plant. They also must consider climate change effects on projects — for example, whether plans for infrastructure along the coast would need to change due to projected sea level rise.”
Washington Post writer Juliet Eilperin added additional perspective on the CEQ development in an update posted on Thursday at the Post Carbon Blog: “NEPA, a 40-year old law, requires the federal government to evaluate the environmental impact of any activity it takes part in or sanctions, whether it’s providing funds for a highway or allowing snowmobile riders into Yellowstone National Park.”
Ms. Eilperin noted that, “Nancy Sutley, Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the move represented an attempt to modernize the landmark federal law. ‘Our country has been strengthened by the open, accountable, informed and citizen-involved decision-making structure created by NEPA,’ Sutley said. ‘We are committed to making NEPA workable and effective, and believe that these changes will contribute significantly to both goals.’”
As the executive branch fosters NEPA application with respect to climate change issues, some have openly speculated and suggested that the law should be applied to the Farm Bill.
Where in the world would fifteen inches of water come from? We’re talking some odd 140,840 square more kilometers of water, yes?
They got the flawed info published before Copenhagen, wasn’t that the point of the series of flawed articles like this? Influence the pols in Copenhagen to get something done. If it took a little fake science, it would have been worth it.
Withdrawing it now, was probably always the play. Anyone think I’m paranoid?
Robert,
I mostly agree with your objections and critique of people’s tone.
Things have gotten bit ugly.
Anyway, sceptic people objected to being likened to old german socialists* and now AGW proponents object to being likened to old german socialists. You know, coal trains and all that. It can be offensive.
So now, what about all the data and stuff? What’s your take on the strength of AGW hypothesis? Because that’s really the bottom line here on this site.
* dodging the filter
It’s worth pointing out that the paper was withdrawn because it contained mistakes in it’s methodology, not because it supported the IPCC’s assessments. Most studies continue to suggest that sea levels will rise.
Don’t worry about sea level rise, we’re going to see hurricanes worsening again, anyway. Hmm, wasn’t it recently shown that hurricane activity was down yet again….oh, that’s right, we’re talking about the “future”….
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100221/ap_on_sc/us_sci_warming_hurricanes
One of the authors is Thomas F . Stocker. Is that the same person as Thomas J. Stocker, recently featured in Climate Audit as one of the “leading authors” of the IPCC?
And “leading author” of the part where they do serious hard science, not WWF- and Greenpeace-stuff?
Ten – you seem to like numbers. Why stop?
You’ve postulated 140,480 km^2 of water – what is that supposed to represent? Surface area of the oceans? It’s more like 360,000,000 km^2. Multiply that by the 15 inch (about 38 cm) you pose and you get 137,000 km^3 of water. Now, looking at that, it seems you must have meant 140,000 km^3 of water in your post. That’s a cube of water about 50 km on a side. Where would we find that?
Greenland has an estimated 2,800,000 km^3 of ice.
Antarctica has an estimated 30,000,000 km^3 of ice.
Any more questions about where the water could come from?
“The AGW ship is sinking… this was previously attributed to rising sea water.”
OK. So the paper has been retracted. However, I am SKEPTICAL that we will hear nothing more about this paper. I am sure it will still be referenced in future studies as supporting information of other effects of AGW/ACC (alarming, disastrous effects at that).
Jryan (07:57:38) :
“The AGW ship is sinking… this was previously attributed to rising sea water.”
LOL. first I thought you were right, then I realised the first explanation might be more accurate.
Rising water lifts all boats. Except the ones firmly anchored to the bottom.
Andrew30 (20:21:38) – “Climate Scientologists”
Classic! You owe me a new keyboard…
Apparently skepticism is only admired when it is directed towards objects you despise, not when your own views are confronted with it.
Ah yes, Robert. Projection at its finest.
Obama Mission Accomplished!
Ref – Robert (23:38:58) :
“Apparently skepticism is only admired when it is directed towards objects you despise, not when your own views are confronted with it.”
__________________________
If you build it , they will come.
I am happy to see that “climate skeptics” know the word “honesty”. Luckily, “climate skeptics” have never made any mistakes in their vast number of peer reviewed scientific papers and will never make any mistakes.
rc
So…..if there has been no statitical significant increase of temperature for 15 years…… how can sealevel rise?
AHA, MODELS……….
The study, which confirmed the rather conservative conclusions of the IPCC-Report 2007, according to the post above, has been withdrawn by the authors after methodological mistakes were found. Why are many of you ranting here so happily about this as if this was a victory for you? Somehow you don’t seem to get it. Like there are just reflexes triggered in you, but nothing else.
rc
Jay (05:53:41) :
It’s worth pointing out that the paper was withdrawn because it contained mistakes in it’s methodology, not because it supported the IPCC’s assessments. Most studies continue to suggest that sea levels will rise.
How odd. That’s the same thing they always say about bull markets (dot com, housing, etc.).
@kwik:
Who was talking about a sea level rise within a 15 year time period? Please remind me.
BTW: Who says the increase in the global temperature hasn’t been statistical significant for the last 15 years? I suppose you refer to what Phil Jones said. He talked about the 95%-significance level regarding the CRU-data analysis. And with respect to this “but only just”. That is, the increase is very probably statistically significant at the 90%-level. Perhaps, even at the 94%-level.
Also, I really don’t understand why people don’t understand that the statistical significance of the warming signal increases with increasing period analyzed.
The funny thing is that “climate skeptics” suddenly care about statistical significance, although how often have “climate skeptics” claimed a recent global cooling trend based on data from even shorter time periods than 15 years?
rc