It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Media Lies; NASA's James Hansen Fear Mongering and Sea Level Rise

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
THE RESEARCH PAPER IN QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN PEER REVIEWED, ALWAYS BE WARY OF PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES WHEN CONSUMING MEDIA.

A short while ago media outlets were mounting their pedestals and racing to grab their bull horns to terrify the masses with tales of sea levels rising several meters by 2050. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your disposition on the matter, these claims are farcical and not even supported by the IPCC.

NASA scientist James Hansen desperately wanted to push his latest findings into the public sphere before an IPCC conference, so he leaked his research papers to the press. This research paper included a nine page summary which made outrageous claims not supported by the study, and the media ran with it.

Earth’s Most Famous Climate Scientist Issues Bombshell Sea Level Warning
By Eric Holthaus

The scientist who put global warming on the map has terrifying news about sea level rise
By Lindsay Abrams

And many many more from every news outlet around published the script straight from the nine page summary. An article from Arstechnica was published today to clarify what the study entailed and bring a little dignity to the ailing profession of journalism by actually reporting something factual on the matter of global warming.


No, scientists aren’t predicting 10ft higher sea level by 2050
By Scott K. Johnson
ArsTechnica


You may have seen the headlines last week: “Former Top NASA Scientist Predicts Catastrophic Rise In Sea Levels,” “Earth’s Most Famous Climate Scientist Issues Bombshell Sea Level Warning,” “Climate Seer James Hansen Issues His Direst Forecast Yet." Facebook even told me it was trending. The problem is, all those headlines describe a study, and that study doesn’t predict anything. It certainly doesn’t predict 10 feet of sea level rise by 2100 (or even 2050) as a number of stories have claimed.

So what happened here? A few things. The circumstances surrounding the paper are unusual. First, the paper has not yet been peer-reviewed. (Many stories did make that clear.) It is currently undergoing a transparent review process for the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Rather than the traditional, behind-closed-doors review where nothing is revealed until the final paper is accepted and published, the journal posts manuscripts immediately as “discussion papers.” As peer reviews are submitted, those will also be posted, as will the authors’ responses and their revisions.

. . .

Along with the 66-page manuscript, a simpler nine-page summary was apparently also given to journalists. (Ars writers did not receive any of this.) It included the language that fueled inaccurate coverage: “We conclude that continued high emissions will make multi-meter sea level rise practically unavoidable and likely to occur this century.” Those last six words, and likely to occur this century, do not appear in the manuscript, nor does the manuscript provide evidence to support them. Yet much of the coverage led with this claim.


I highly suggest reading the article in full to clarify most questions regarding the situation.

The study has still not completed its peer review.

-FYI




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
The IPCC is projecting a sea-level rise of 26-82 cm by 2100 in AR5. 10 feet by 2050 seems insane. I wonder what his arguments are.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I don't think this article is propaganda, but you are welcome to buy a big mansion in Miami...
www.rsmas.miami.edu...



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D
The IPCC is projecting a sea-level rise of 26-82 cm by 2100 in AR5. 10 feet by 2050 seems insane. I wonder what his arguments are.



From the article;


. . . A few scenarios examined in the paper added glacial meltwater to the oceans—enough to raise sea levels by several meters over varying timescales. To be clear about this: sea level rise was an input controlled by the researchers, not a prediction from the model (or some other analysis).

. . .

Given that temperatures are increasing much more rapidly today than they did during that interglacial, the researchers explore the climate impacts of some rapid sea level rise scenarios of their choosing. These scenarios are predicated on glacial melt rates accelerating over time—one in which the melt rate doubles every five years, one every 10 years, and one every 20 years. Each scenario stops at 5 meters of sea level rise. A 5-year doubling time reaches 5 meters around the year 2060, while a 20-year doubling time hits 5 meters around 2160.

For reference, the researchers note that satellite measurements of Greenland’s melt rate from 2003 to 2013 would imply a 10-year doubling time, but acknowledge that “this high rate may not continue.” It very well may not; that’s a very short time period to extrapolate from, and 2012 was an anomalously big melt year.

. . .

They can’t say anything about when this kind of behavior might kick in, because the study isn’t designed to yield any insight about timing. Most ice sheet studies deal with changes that look to take centuries or even millennia to play out, so extremely rapid scenarios like this would require strong evidence.


I hope that helps.

They make several models and include assumptions they think may be possible as a result of the conditions input into the model and then make claims from those results. The study does not appear to have been designed for such outcomes to be measured, but rather they are projecting further upon the data to reach additional conclusions.

-FBB
edit on 29-7-2015 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Well, if this nine-page summary was given to journalists and included, “We conclude that continued high emissions will make multi-meter sea level rise" for once I would have some sympathy with the journalists, in most common parlance 'multi metre' certainly means more than two, but still, they should have read the detail. Trouble is where did the flyer come from, know that, and you'll likely know if the paper is worth anything or not. It's not surprising the the whole debate is bermbing, for either good or bad reasons. I think it's a pity that there are scientist who have been studying in their specialities for years on the basis of early work like Mann's hockeystick, which seems to have become variable of late, and guys like Gavin Schmitt not helping things.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

The same predictions they have been making for a LONG time.


It is some of the most entertaining doom porn out there.

But I still prefer CERN.


Jade Helm!!!!



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Fear mongering, from the climate change people?

I feel so dirty.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
I don't think this article is propaganda, but you are welcome to buy a big mansion in Miami...
www.rsmas.miami.edu...


They acknowledge that the actual data and studies that have actually been peer reviewed indicate a 10 year doubling. Per THEIR OWN MODELS that time period does not fit in the reporting . . . only the 5 year doubling accomplishes what was reported in the press leak.

Disingenuous to say the least . . .



For reference, the researchers note that satellite measurements of Greenland’s melt rate from 2003 to 2013 would imply a 10-year doubling time, but acknowledge that “this high rate may not continue.” It very well may not; that’s a very short time period to extrapolate from, and 2012 was an anomalously big melt year.



But hey, if you want to ignore what pre-eminent climate scientist at NASA has to say be my guess.

-FBB



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64
Not fear mongering. Make up crazy predictions that do not align with the 98% of the experts, then try to convince the layman those were their predictions...
More manipulation and deception from the denier's camp. What else is new?


edit on 29-7-2015 by jrod because: c




top topics



 
3

log in

join