Jump to content

Climate scientists WITHDRAW journal claims of RISING SEA LEVELS


Recommended Posts


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


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."


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".



Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you bother to read what you post?


seriously cal you really should stick to farming or whatever you do.


The IPCC is not the be all end all and this study which THRU PEER REVIEW is being checked and now the data after they make their corrections will be republished.... this is from 2009....... MOst of the other studies (which are in the thousands) have all been published and reviewed over the last 20 years......



Link to comment
Share on other sites

pumpkin eater.... what EXACTLY do you think the "math" problem or miscalculation was.... I am sure it was a simple thing so please explain and source was this problem was......


What exactly was this "bad" math not taking into account and how was that related to the "natural temperature variables"?


I am sure since you made this criticisms you will know exactly how simple or complicated this was and can demonstrate and source it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some if you told them they stepped into a pile of shit they would not believe you, even if they tracked all over the house.



Its good to see some scientists are humble enough to come clean on their bogus reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sev, don't get all sweaty and frightened, for goodness' sake. The STUDY was from 09.


Not this article. The author of that study NOW says the true estimate is uncertain.


That's all.


Did YOU read the freakin article? Perhaps you should stick to the toilet seat, you're full of it with your insults. <_<



Link to comment
Share on other sites

pumpkin eater.... what EXACTLY do you think the "math" problem or miscalculation was.... I am sure it was a simple thing so please explain and source was this problem was......


What exactly was this "bad" math not taking into account and how was that related to the "natural temperature variables"?


I am sure since you made this criticisms you will know exactly how simple or complicated this was and can demonstrate and source it.


Do you remember the miscalculation by NASA that lead to the crashing of the Mars orbiter into Mars? That, too, was a "simple miscalculation" because they forgot to change English units into metric. The results of such a "simple miscalculation" were disasterous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're all wet in Egypt again, Heck.


There have been posts from so many sources, CNN for one, and


if it makes you upset because it makes your political positions on all these matters


look off base, you get all pouty and you whine "bad bad bad, whatever source it is, is a bad source"


and the well known "that guy doesn't even have a college education" and "that guy isn't a climate scientist"


and "that was just on drudge, so it's wrong" but from a scientific source, and phd's explaining,


and legit studies brought up...


if you can't diss the media outlet, or the source in any way...;


you leave for a while or you just ignore the thread and hope it falls away quickly.


That's just plain dishonest for one who thinks he is absolutely the final authority on all


opinions - which had better be liberal.


Not workin. At all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we could try this: posting every study ever. I'll start with just the ones listed in October of 2003.


Plankton May Protect Planet from Icy Fate

October 31, 2003

Study finds the emergence of shelled sea creatures led to greater stability in the Earth�s carbon cycle, protecting the Earth from additional ice ages. (Science)

Warm Ocean Waters Said to Harm Ice Shelf

October 31, 2003

Two sections of Antarctica�s Larsen ice shelf have collapsed over the past decade and another portion could be headed for the same fate as warming ocean waters undermine the ice, researchers say. (Associated Press, ABC News)

Thinning Arctic Ice Cap Threatens Polar Bears: Scientists

October 29, 2003

Using data from radar satellites, scientists discover a direct link between longer summers and thinning ice, spelling a potential catastrophe for Arctic ecosystems and wildlife. (Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, ABC News, Terradaily.com)

Climate Scientists Study 'Polar Vortex'

October 29, 2003

Researchers struggle to determine if changes in the polar vortex above the North Pole are part of a natural cycle or if they're related to global climate change. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

Scientists, Others Trying to Make Sense of Arctic Changes

October 28, 2003

Some scientists continue to blame global warming for observed Arctic warming while others argue it�s merely a consequence of changing weather patterns. (USA Today)

Warm Globe, More Snow

October 28, 2003

Contrary to most of the world, researchers say the Great Lakes of North America will experience greater snowfall thanks to more potent lake-effect snows caused by global warming. (Science.com)

Researchers Predict Climate Change

October 26, 2003

Researchers at Oak Ridge Laboratory predict dramatic weather changes during the next 100 years due to the burning of fossil fuels and extensive deforestation. (Associated Press)

UC Researchers' Work Confirms Global Warming Theories

October 25, 2003

University of California-Santa Cruz research indicates theoretical models that blame global warming on increased atmospheric concentrations of industrial waste are quite accurate. (Associated Press, Santa Cruz Sentinel)

Satellite to Assist in Flood Control

October 24, 2003

Satellite data will soon be used to create a water monitoring and flow forecasting system for the Yellow River basin to reduce water shortages and mitigate the impact of drought. (China Daily)

Climate Change and American Agriculture Faces Dwindling Benefits

October 24, 2003

Government scientists now believe the benefits of climate change to American croplands will likely be less than previously indicated. (Spacedaily.com, Discovery.com)

Warmer Arctic Could Have Widespread Effects

October 23, 2003

NASA scientists find new evidence of Arctic warming and a decline in sea ice cover, with implications for global climate change. (Scripps-Howard, LA Times, The Baltimore Sun, NewScientist.com)

Killer Iceberg?

October 23, 2003

NASA satellites show a huge iceberg that broke off from Antarctica has had a major impact on wildlife by nearly wiping out tiny plants and animals that form the foundation of the food chain. (ABCNews.com)

New ESA Satellite Set to Significantly Improve Weather Forecasting

October 23, 2003

The European Space Agency (ESA) has provided funding for the construction of Aeolus, the first satellite to study the Earth�s wind patterns from space&8212;in hope of providing better information to forecasters that now rely on wind data from weather balloons, aircraft and radar. (Cordis News)

Climate Raised the Andes, Researchers Propose

October 23, 2003

Scientists suggest the cooling of water in the Peru-Chile current system triggered the drying of the west coast of South America, reducing the amount of sediment washed into tectonic plates and consequently raising stress levels to push the Andes to great size. (Nature)

China's Boom Adds to Global Warming Problem

October 22, 2003

New figures from the Chinese government show that coal use and the country�s rapid economic growth are producing a surge in emissions of greenhouse gases that threatens international efforts to curb global warming. (NYTimes.com)

NAU Scientists Gain Clues About Climate Change

October 22, 2003

Analysis of sediment samples in southern Alaska helps a pair of NAU scientists unlock mysteries about climatic cycles and suggests today�s climate is changing at a rate of 10 to 100 times faster than natural conditions. (LumberjackOnline.com)

Organic Farming Yields New Weapon Against Global Warming

October 21, 2003

The world�s longest running study of organic farming finds organic soils help scrub the atmosphere of global warming gases by capturing carbon dioxide and converting it into soil material. (MarketWire.com)

Study: Glaciers Melting Faster, Changing Sea Level

October 17, 2003

Melting of glaciers in the Patagonian ice fields of southern Argentina and Chile has doubled in recent years, caused by higher temperatures, lower snowfall and more rapid breaking of icebergs. (CNN.com)

Global Warming to Affect Sierra

October 17, 2003

A study finds global warming is leading to massive changes in the Sierra Nevada snow pack that could ultimately reduce the supply of drinking water to much of California and northern Nevada. (Associated Press)

Ozone May Offset Capacity of Trees to Sop Up Carbon

October 16, 2003

A new experiment finds that common concentrations of ozone can sharply impede the ability of trees and forests to absorb carbon dioxide, the gas most scientists see as the main culprit in global warming. (NYTimes.com)

Warmer Ocean Blamed for Drought

October 10, 2003

A warmer Indian Ocean is the culprit behind a devastating drought that hit the Sahel--a 5000-kilometer-long strip of marginally habitable land along the southern edge of the Sahara--in the 1970s, according to new research. (Science)

Ozone Loss Changes Weather

October 10, 2003

Human-caused damage to the ozone layer is messing with the weather in the Southern Hemisphere, according to new research. (Science)

Study Finds Monday-Friday Grind Creates Climate Changes

October 10, 2003

Everyone knows how the work week can take a toll on employees, but new research suggests the five-day slog may have even broader impacts — on climate. (ABCNews.com)

Weeds, Pests Threaten Crops, Gardens in Warmer, Wetter Climate

October 10, 2003

Noxious weeds, including poison ivy and ragweed - the pollen of which is a leading cause of allergies in late summer - will be among the big winners as levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increase. (Environmental News Network)

European Heatwave Caused 35,000 Deaths

October 10, 2003

At least 35,000 people died as a result of the record heatwave that scorched Europe in August 2003, says an environmental think tank, warning that such deaths are likely to increase, as "even more extreme weather events lie ahead". (NewScientist.com)

Asthmatic Children React to 'Moderate' Pollution

October 8, 2003

Children with severe asthma start suffering from symptoms even at what are now considered to be acceptable levels of air pollution from low-level ozone, the prime offender. (Reuters)

In Yellowstone, a Subterranean Volcano Exerts Its Influence

October 7, 2003

In a few days in July, acidic ground water dissolved parts of the unpaved trails in the Norris Geyser Basin, and the ground temperature of the trails shot up to 200 degrees from the usual maximum of 80. (NYTimes.com)

Shocks May Clean Up Aquifers

October 7, 2003

Shock waves could flush pollutants from aquifers, propose Shaul Sorek of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and colleagues. (Nature.com)

Controlled Bushfires Damage - Not Protect - Wildlife

October 6, 2003

The controlled burning of vast swathes of bushland in northern Australia every year is damaging biodiversity, not protecting it, according to the results of an eight-year experiment. (NewScientist.com)

Climate Change Shifts Flight Schedules

October 3, 2003

In the latest example of nature taking global warming seriously, British birds appear to have shifted their yearly flight schedules by more than a week over the past 30 years. (Science)

Researchers Aim Low for Better Tornado Forecasts

October 2, 2003

University researchers will try to improve the forecasting of tornadoes and floods by using small radars that bring weather analysis down to earth, an executive from IBM said. (Reuters)

Huge Iceberg Destroying Antarctic Food Chain

October 2, 2003

An Iceberg more than four times the size of Greater London is damaging marine wildlife off the coast of Antarctica by blocking sunlight to a huge expanse of ocean, Nasa scientists said. (The Independent - London)

Arctic Claims Melt with the Ice Cap

October 2, 2003

News reports of a widening crack in the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, off the coast of Ellesmere Island, offer a dramatic demonstration of global warming - and, less visibly, of the danger that higher temperatures pose to Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. (Toronto Star)

160,000 Said Dying Yearly from Global Warming

October 1, 2003

About 160,000 people die every year from side-effects of global warming ranging from malaria to malnutrition and the numbers could almost double by 2020, a group of WHO and other scientists say. (Reuters, CNN.com)

California Moves to End Colorado River Water Wars

October 1, 2003

California took a major step this week toward resolving its so-called water wars and reducing the amount it draws from the giant Colorado River, largely at the expense of the state's desert farmers. (Reuters)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polar bears. Did I mess that one? Like, the polar bear study that said the polar bears were drowning and dieing and nearly exinct


because all the icebergs were melting?


Cherry picked, $$$$$$$ made for those scientists who climbed on board. The truth is out,


and the genie won't be put back into the bottle.


Some of those posts even admit there are scientists who agree with us.


Not ONE of them prove that man made global warming exists.


We already TOLD you guys that weather patterns change. Big deal,


sometimes it's warmer, sometimes it's colder.....


you two really have to be kidding. Come on, honestly now. You're kidding about the mmgw thing, right?


It's so over - never was fact. Just a pop theory that was rewarded with $$$ to jump on board,


the money being politically motivated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the truth Heck.



Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe To Ask for DOJ Investigation (Pajamas Media/PJTV Exclusive)

Inhofe intends to ask for a probe of the embattled climate scientists for possible criminal acts. And he thinks Gore should be recalled to explain his prior congressional testimony. (Click here for the just-released Senate Environment and Public Works report behind Inhofe's announcement.)


February 23, 2010 - by Charlie Martin Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called "the greatest scientific scandal of our generation" — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate Files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).


Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.


"In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted," Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.


Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Science.


This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today's hearing, alleges:


[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed "consensus" and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.


As has been reported here at Pajamas Media over the last several months, the exposure of the Climategate Files has led to a re-examination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency's Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.


Since the Climategate Files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway "purely to put political pressure on world leaders."


Based on this Minority Staff report, Senator Inhofe will be calling for an investigation into potential research misconduct and possible criminal acts by the researchers involved. At the same time, Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.


In requesting that the EPA reopen the Endangerment Finding, Inhofe joins with firms such as the Peabody Energy Company and several state Attorneys General (such as Texas and Virginia) in objecting to the Obama administration's attempt to extend regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Senator Inhofe believes this staff report "strengthens the case" for the Texas and Virginia Attorneys General.


Senator Inhofe's announcement today appears to be the first time a member of Congress has formally called for an investigation into research misconduct and potential criminal acts by the scientists involved.


The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the Climategate Files and the subsequent revelations:


  1. The emails suggest some climate scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of damaging information and counter-evidence.
  2. They suggest scientists were manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions.
  3. They show some climate scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the "consensus."
  4. They show that scientists involved in the report were assuming the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity.

The report notes a number of potential legal issues raised by their Climategate investigation:


  1. It suggests scientific misconduct that may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct (which were announced December 12, 2000).
  2. It notes the potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties.
  3. The report also notes the possibility of there having been an obstruction of Congress in Congressional Proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice.

If proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to debarment from federally funded research, and even to criminal penalties.


By naming potential criminal offenses, Senator Inhofe raises the stakes for climate scientists and others involved. Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct. Adding possible criminal charges to the mix increases the possibility that some of the people involved may choose to blow the whistle in order to protect themselves.


Senator Inhofe believes that Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be "let go" from their posts "for the good of the institutions involved."


The question, of course, is whether the Senate Democratic majority will allow this investigation to proceed, in the face of the Obama administration's stated intention to regulate CO2 following the apparent death of cap and trade legislation. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science.


For more of PJM's most recent Climategate coverage, read Charlie Martin's "Climategate: The World's Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here".


Charlie Martin is a Colorado computer scientist and freelance writer. He holds an MS in Computer Science from Duke University, where he spent six years with the National Biomedical Simulation Resource, Duke University Medical Center. Find him at http://chasrmartin.com, and on his blog at http://explorations.chasrmartin.com.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

All heck posted was a bunch of crap about the earth warming. Well some of us are smart enough to realize that the earth NATURALLY goes through climate cycles. Take, for instance, past ice ages and warm periods where Vikings were able to colonize and farm parts of Greenland where the soil is now considered to be permafrost. Some less intelligent people want to blame humans for it, as if mankind can actually control mother nature. Get real!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...