Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

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, 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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010...retract-siddall

[Ban Hammer 14,578]

there's more retractions from the global warming nuts than from most us president's press secretaries

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

But.......but.........but........

[Peikko 1,575]

Climate scientists are not nuts - nor do they have some axe to grind unlike those who drive the ideological skepticism.

[웃 910]

Top U.N. Climate Official Yvo de Boer Resigning

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/18/...boer-resigning/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Climate scientists are not nuts - nor do they have some axe to grind unlike those who drive the ideological skepticism.

So, which is bigger? 29 feet, or 82 centimeters?

Edited February 22, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Climate scientists are not nuts - nor do they have some axe to grind unlike those who drive the ideological skepticism.

What does that have to do with being liars?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Top U.N. Climate Official Yvo de Boer Resigning

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/18/...boer-resigning/

Faux News!

[Peikko 1,575]

What does that have to do with being liars?

What has being liars to do with climate scientists? Only an ideological skeptic would try to make these sorts of claims, someone who was genuinely skeptical about the science would approach the matter entirely differently.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Faux News!

Even a blind hen sometimes finds a grain of corn.

Yvo de Boer, the UN's climate chief, has announced his resignation.

[scandal 951]

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."

It could have been overestimated. Or underestimated. At this point, all this story is saying is that the paper was retracted. Meaning that the authors need to go through their calculations again, and correct their errors. Not unlike when you are notified of an error on your tax return and need to recalculate and refile. It's pretty common, as indicated in the story.

If the recalculated numbers come back showing that the sea level rise were actually underestimated, or were initially correct, then the conclusions of the report may yet be shown to be valid.

On the other hand, if they come back showing an overestimate, that could change the conclusions.

For those who wonder how it's not possible to know whether there was an over or underestimate based upon the two known technical mistakes, keep in mind that these models are highly non linear. It's not merely plunking a cell into a spreadsheet and running a "what if" scenario. Typically, you would need to rerun large numerical simulations (Monte Carlo or similar) with the corrected parameters. The results of those simulations simply won't be known till they are run.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Thnak You Al Gore for fixing Global Warming!

It could have been overestimated. Or underestimated. At this point, all this story is saying is that the paper was retracted. Meaning that the authors need to go through their calculations again, and correct their errors. Not unlike when you are notified of an error on your tax return and need to recalculate and refile. It's pretty common, as indicated in the story.

If the recalculated numbers come back showing that the sea level rise were actually underestimated, or were initially correct, then the conclusions of the report may yet be shown to be valid.

On the other hand, if they come back showing an overestimate, that could change the conclusions.

For those who wonder how it's not possible to know whether there was an over or underestimate based upon the two known technical mistakes, keep in mind that these models are highly non linear. It's not merely plunking a cell into a spreadsheet and running a "what if" scenario. Typically, you would need to rerun large numerical simulations (Monte Carlo or similar) with the corrected parameters. The results of those simulations simply won't be known till they are run.

I see you still believe in Leprechauns. It is a learning process, Scandal. Global warming is fixed. Be happy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I see you still believe in Leprechauns. It is a learning process, Scandal. Global warming is fixed. Be happy.

Something tells me history and science were not Gary's best subjects in school.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Something tells me history and science were not Gary's best subjects in school.

Pourquois pas, Stephen?

[Ban Hammer 14,578]

Pourquois pas, Stephen?

english only outside the regional forums.