Climate Scientists WITHDRAW Journel Claims of Rising Sea Level

Climate Scientists WITHDRAW Journel Claims of Rising Sea Level

Climate Scientists WITHDRAW Journel Claims of Rising Sea Level

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.

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.

Once again, SLOPPY SCIENCE makes headlines in the ongoing (although rapidly deteriorating) Manmade Global Warming Hoax.

As one embarrassing revelation after another proves, the MMGW hoax was rushed into existence to affect governmental policies worldwide, with the objective of squeezing fresh taxes from the global population.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 2/21/2010 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


please just name the scientists involved so our resident GW believer can discredit them and thus discredit your entire article. (Mel)

I am not sure how many truths have to be shown before the blind followers can admit that this whole business is 90% BS. While I feel increasingly more vindicated, I still have deep regrets that the entire problem of polluting the Earth has been largely ignored for all the years that this stupid movement has been in existence. We still burn petroleum based fuels in our cars, and we still burn coal for our power on the larger scale. It just seems that while we were bitching about who to blame and who to charge, we forgot how to try. Sad.

thanks Doc.

Why would I want to discredit them?

They made mistakes in the article. It happens. The mistakes were pointed out quickly by other researchers, and eventually the paper retracted - I know a few other articles that should be retracted by the authors (e.g, Lindzen & Choi; Douglass, Singer, & Christy). It's not as if the science depends on a single article.

Global sea level linked to global temperature

Martin Vermeera,1 and Stefan Rahmstorfb

We propose a simple relationship linking global sea-level variations on time scales of decades to centuries to global mean
temperature. This relationship is tested on synthetic data from a
global climate model for the past millennium and the next century.
When applied to observed data of sea level and temperature for
1880–2000, and taking into account known anthropogenic hydrologic contributions to sea level, the correlation is >0.99, explaining 98% of the variance. 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.

PNAS, 2010

The big difference is that the Sidell study tried a new method using paleo data and came up with a more limited sea level rise than this newer article.

You see, ND, it's easy to blurt terms like 'blind followers', but most of you deniers can't tell your ass from your elbow in this area. Dunning-Krugers through and through.

[edit on 22-2-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Why would I want to discredit them?

Duh! LOL?

Originally posted by melatonin
Why would I want to discredit them?

I have a challenge for you. I want you to look back at the last 30 or so threads that were about GW being a fake. Then look at your first post in those threads. Once you do that, you will see why I said what I said. Your first step in any discussion is to discredit the scientists involved.

As far as blind followers, I wasn't directing that at you. You have mountains of data to guide you. You are very knowledgeable about the subject. It's a shame that so many people are putting so much energy into propping up a farce though. The current cycle is much like cycles of the past. I know, this one is different. Even though it looks just like cycles of the past. Why? because the scientists you listen to said so.

Originally posted by network dude
I have a challenge for you. I want you to look back at the last 30 or so threads that were about GW being a fake. Then look at your first post in those threads. Once you do that, you will see why I said what I said. Your first step in any discussion is to discredit the scientists involved.

You expect me to do the work for you? You just throw out a random inane comment aimed at me, and I'm meant to find your evidence...

lol

I don't have any issues with these scientists. They had an idea, they did some research, they went through the normal scientific process, they made a boo-boo that they were very willing to accept. Science moves on.

As far as blind followers, I wasn't directing that at you. You have mountains of data to guide you. You are very knowledgeable about the subject. It's a shame that so many people are putting so much energy into propping up a farce though. The current cycle is much like cycles of the past. I know, this one is different. Even though it looks just like cycles of the past. Why? because the scientists you listen to said so.

What current cycle? Do you not see the tautology in your position?

[edit on 22-2-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
It's not as if the science depends on a single article.

It's not as if it was a "single" instance of gross error.

The MMGW hoaxers always respond with the same lame mantra: Well, that's just ONE mistake. The Science isn't going to collapse over ONE mistake.

Except that it's NOT just "one mistake"... It's ONE MISTAKE AFTER ANOTHER in SEVERAL important scientific reports on Manmade Global Warming.

The data is crumbling across the board. First it was proven that much if not most of the data featured in Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth was erroneous, if not downright falsified, including the much-touted "hockey stick" graph (which was recently disproven again); Then it was the IPCC's horrendous email scandal, demonstrating that the "science" behind the United Nations climate investigation was tainted with propaganda and hidden agendas on the part of the "unbiased" researchers; Then it was the admission that the Himalaya glacier data was a LIE based on unverified data, cooked up to influence world leaders in shaping governmental policy; NOW it is this withdrawal of "scientific findings" on rising sea levels, based on highly questionable and unverified data.

This isn't about "one mistake," my friend. It's about a great raft of LIES from a number of "scientific" sources.

Sloppy Science ITSELF has killed the Manmade Global Warming Hoax.

Look here, if you were in the hospital, awaiting major surgery for a catastrophic ailment, and suddenly your physicians (plural) started filing through the door, one after another, admitting that "mistakes have been made" in your diagnosis, you would FIRE the doctors and get the hell out of that hospital, would you not?

Beyond that, you'd SUE the hospital for malpractice.

Same thing goes for the Manmade Global Warming Hoax. ALL of these climate-change quacks deserve nothing less than legal prosecution for submitting ERRORS and LIES and PROPAGANDA for our collective consideration, pending a ridiculous and unnecessary OVERHAUL of global governmental policies.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 2/22/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by melatonin
It's not as if the science depends on a single article.

It's not as if it was a "single" instance of gross error.

The MMGW hoaxers always respond with the same lame mantra: Well, that's just ONE mistake. The Science isn't going to collapse over ONE mistake.

Except that it's NOT just "one mistake"... It's ONE MISTAKE AFTER ANOTHER in SEVERAL important scientific reports on Manmade Global Warming.

The data is crumbling across the board. First it was proven that much if not most of the data featured in Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth was erroneous, if not downright falsified, including the much-touted "hockey stick" graph (which was recently disproven again); Then it was the IPCC's horrendous email scandal, demonstrating that the "science" behind the United Nations climate investigation was tainted with propaganda and hidden agendas on the part of the "unbiased" researchers; Then it was the admission that the Himalaya glacier data was a LIE based on unverified data, cooked up to influence world leaders in shaping governmental policy; NOW it is this withdrawal of "scientific findings" on rising sea levels, based on highly questionable and unverified data.

This isn't about "one mistake," my friend. It's about a great raft of LIES from a number of "scientific" sources.

Sloppy Science ITSELF has killed the Manmade Global Warming Hoax.

Look here, if you were in the hospital, awaiting major surgery for a catastrophic ailment, and suddenly your physicians (plural) started filing through the door, one after another, admitting that "mistakes have been made" in your diagnosis, you would FIRE the doctors and get the hell out of that hospital, would you not?

Beyond that, you'd SUE the hospital for malpractice.

Same thing goes for the Manmade Global Warming Hoax. ALL of these climate-change quacks deserve nothing less than legal prosecution for submitting ERRORS and LIES and PROPAGANDA for our collective consideration, pending a ridiculous and unnecessary OVERHAUL of global governmental policies.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/22/2010 by Doc Velocity]

It's probably not a even a mistake. It was probably someone getting paid to push the same agenda that Mel-t has. He loves that word denier. It's the only "proof" of GW he has.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Did you read your own article?

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more.

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

They are not saying they are wrong about global warming. In fact, the article talks about how many scientists think their study was wrong because it didn't show a high enough rise. And the author didn't even use spell check, nice source.

Originally posted by whoshotJR
reply to post by Doc Velocity

 

Did you read your own article?

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more.

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

They are not saying they are wrong about global warming. In fact, the article talks about how many scientists think their study was wrong because it didn't show a high enough rise. And the author didn't even use spell check, nice source.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.

www.guardian.co.uk...

The study in question.

Our model explains much of the centennial-scale variability observed over the past 22,000 years, and estimates 4–24 cm of sea-level rise during the twentieth century, in agreement with the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change1 (IPCC). In response to the minimum (1.1 °C) and maximum (6.4 °C) warming projected for AD 2100 by the IPCC models, our model predicts 7 and 82 cm of sea-level rise by the end of the twenty-first century, respectively. The range of sea-level rise is slightly larger than the estimates from the IPCC models of 18–76 cm, but is sufficiently similar to increase confidence in the projections.

www.nature.com...

About the bold - if the model actually increased slightly from the IPCCs ocean rise then the two mistakes which threw this study completely off probably means that it isnt sufficiently similar anymore to increase confidence of the IPCC projections. It also probably means that the mistakes found drastically decrease the amount projected for this study.

[edit on 22-2-2010 by watcher73]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
The data is crumbling across the board.

Sorry, dude, that's your wishful-thinking. No matter how much you repeat such BS it still won't be true.

including the much-touted "hockey stick" graph (which was recently disproven again);

No, there is now a whole bunch of hockey sticks. Enough for the Yanks to beat the Cannucks round the noggins for a second time.

Falsehood 1.

Then it was the IPCC's horrendous email scandal, demonstrating that the "science" behind the United Nations climate investigation was tainted with propaganda and hidden agendas on the part of the "unbiased" researchers;

The emails show nothing of the sort. Moreover, the CRU is not the IPCC.

Falsehood 2.

Then it was the admission that the Himalaya glacier data was a LIE based on unverified data, cooked up to influence world leaders in shaping governmental policy;

Not a lie. An error. A lie requires intention. The error was in an obscure part of the IPCC report which focused on impacts, and was in contradiction to the actual scientific basis (WGI). But it was an error. Which will be corrected by a group of people who are committed to presenting the best scientific evidence.

The second part is you regurgitating a misrepresentation of Murari Lal from David Rose.

Falsehood 3.

NOW it is this withdrawal of "scientific findings" on rising sea levels, based on highly questionable and unverified data.

A scientific finding.

It is one paper supporting the claims of sea-level rises. Moreover, scientific articles are retracted often enough. It's part of the honesty of scientists when they take on board valid criticism.

The main claim of the study is actually well-supported.

This isn't about "one mistake," my friend. It's about a great raft of LIES from a number of "scientific" sources.

Yeah, it's about two. One was an error in WGII and the second was a new research study which was very quickly shown to be wrong by scientists, not deniers.

But no matter how much you try to turn it around, it's people like you manning the raft.

Look here, if you were in the hospital, awaiting major surgery for a catastrophic ailment, and suddenly your physicians (plural) started filing through the door, one after another, admitting that "mistakes have been made" in your diagnosis, you would FIRE the doctors and get the hell out of that hospital, would you not?

But that's not what is happening. It is nothing but a manufactroversy. The science is effectively untouched. In fact, your arguments are predominately the same old crap people like you have been spouting for years - just with added quote-mining. You all seem determined to ape creationists.

There has been a mendacious PR campaign by deniers to swiftboat the science. That's all. It will likely work for a time. You'll get more delay, but the science hasn't changed at all.

When you lot are resorting to stealing emails, it only shows that ya got nuthin' but smoke and mirrors. Reality will cut through your games in time.

Same thing goes for the Manmade Global Warming Hoax. ALL of these climate-change quacks deserve nothing less than legal prosecution for submitting ERRORS and LIES and PROPAGANDA for our collective consideration, pending a ridiculous and unnecessary OVERHAUL of global governmental policies.

And we end where your reasoning actually starts, like any ideologically-motivated denier. The politics.

@Watcher - I do like the word for people like yourself. It's a fitting description of your approach and position. You wear the label well.

Cheers.



[edit on 22-2-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

@Watcher - I do like the word for people like yourself. It's a fitting description of your approach and position. You wear the label well.

Cheers.

I suppose the opposite of denier then would be truther? Are you a AGW truther?

Your own guy said CO2 was not the cause then attempted to try and work co2 into some psuedo-scientific feedback loop in which is becomes a secondary "cause".

None of you truthers has even attempted to explain your rationale that we might somehow tip warming when the milanko cycles show more co2 and then a still, a plunge into coldness. This has happened more than once in the last half million years and as far as we know its going to happen again.

You truthers are all deniers that water vapor is the main culprit in climate change. This seems to be sort of a paradox since youre all so worried about melting ice.



[edit on 22-2-2010 by watcher73]

Originally posted by watcher73
I suppose the opposite of denier then would be truther? Are you a AGW truther?

Nah, prefer realist. Sceptic would work as well.

Your own guy said CO2 was not the cause then attempted to try and work co2 into some psuedo-scientific feedback loop in which is becomes a secondary "cause".

What are you on about? Which guy of 'mine'?

None of you truthers has even attempted to explain your rationale that we might somehow tip warming when the milanko cycles show more co2 and then a still, a plunge into coldness. This has happened more than once in the last half million years and as far as we know its going to happen again.

You truthers are all deniers that water vapor is the main culprit in climate change. This seems to be sort of a paradox since youre all so worried about melting ice.

lol

I can barely understand what you're whittering on about. Perhaps have a think and present it in a more coherent fashion. I assume you're talking about Ice-age cycles.

Originally posted by melatonin

You expect me to do the work for you? You just throw out a random inane comment aimed at me, and I'm meant to find your evidence...

lol

I don't have any issues with these scientists. They had an idea, they did some research, they went through the normal scientific process, they made a boo-boo that they were very willing to accept. Science moves on.

You are right. I shouldn't have asked you to do my research for me. Especially since I had already done that research. It was more for anyone who didn't know why I posted that. They can check it out.

How many more boo-boos do you think there are in the data? Are we all doomed to drown in a swelling ocean full of polar bear bodies? Or is it possible that this current warming cycle that appears to be on the downswing, won't melt the entire polar ice caps and kill us all? If my future is short, I need to know. there are some beers in other countries I have yet to try, and to die without tasting them would be a sin I cannot live with. Please tell me how bad it is really going to get!!!

What current cycle? Do you not see the tautology in your position?

You must have lumped me in with the people who refuse to accept that the temperature ever changes. I willfully admit that the temperature does in fact change. Sometimes it gets real cold, then it gets real warm. In fact if you look at any data presented by either side of this debate, it would seem that it has been doing exactly that since the beginning of time (as far as we can go back to get data) So there is my entire argument in a nutshell. I didn't have to discredit any scientists to do that, just said what I think. The temperature (global mean temperature) fluctuates over a broad spectrum. it goes up, then it goes down.

BTW, your tree is doing well.

[edit on 22-2-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

lol

I can barely understand what you're whittering on about. Perhaps have a think and present it in a more coherent fashion. I assume you're talking about Ice-age cycles.

Translation: I cant answer any of it. Stop you're embarrassing me.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Of course what you and DRUDGE forget to mention (and good job leaving it out of you post, btw... very clever) is that the exact claim isn't backed up by the evidence, but in fact the RISE MAY BE WORSE.

That's what the articles bottom line is... they used to think they know, now they don't.

It could be less, but it COULD BE MORE.

Originally posted by watcher73
Translation: I cant answer any of it. Stop you're embarrassing me.

I'm not sure I need translating. But I find it pretty hard to answer word-salad.

Sorry.

[edit on 22-2-2010 by melatonin]

Lets put this in conspiracy terms. If at the first ufo sighting was debunked, people stopped believing, then there wouldn't be any ufo people out there.
Fact is, one mistake doesn't negate an entire subject.

Adn the same thread being repeated over and over by the skeptics scrutininzing for any thread of evidence they can find and cry: SEE! repeating it over and over, does not make it a slew of mistakes.

Many of which themselves ended up being hoaxes.

whoops, first double post in a while!!

[edit on 22-2-2010 by nixie_nox]

Originally posted by network dude
How many more boo-boos do you think there are in the data?

I have already stated two which are clearly problematic. However, as the authors are 'sceptics', I'm not holding my breath for any retractions.

Or is it possible that this current warming cycle that appears to be on the downswing,

lol, dream on.

won't melt the entire polar ice caps and kill us all?

I doubt it.

If my future is short, I need to know. there are some beers in other countries I have yet to try, and to die without tasting them would be a sin I cannot live with. Please tell me how bad it is really going to get!!!

All our future's are short. We are but a fart through the anus of the universe.

I would suggest if we carry on regardless, about 6-8'C warming eventually. I'm sure you and I will be long gone by then, though.

You must have lumped me in with the people who refuse to accept that the temperature ever changes...The temperature (global mean temperature) fluctuates over a broad spectrum. it goes up, then it goes down.

lol, I know what a cycle would entail. The point is that your argument is tautological, and thus is circular and is therefore begging the question. That's a funny, by the way.

Glad to hear my tree is doing well.

[edit on 22-2-2010 by melatonin]