Climate change study had 'significant error': experts

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Matthew, Jan 19, 2011.

  1. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,654
    Thanks Received:
    4,594
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,138
    Climate change study had 'significant error': experts
    Yahoo ^ | 1/19//11 | Kerry Sheridan - AFP



    WASHINGTON (AFP) – A climate change study that projected a 2.4 degree Celsius increase in temperature and massive worldwide food shortages in the next decade was seriously flawed, scientists said Wednesday.

    The study was posted on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and was written about by numerous international news agencies, including AFP.

    But AAAS later retracted the study as experts cited numerous errors in its approach.

    "A reporter with The Guardian alerted us yesterday to concerns about the news release submitted by Hoffman & Hoffman public relations," said AAAS spokeswoman Ginger Pinholster in an email to AFP.

    "We immediately contacted a climate change expert, who confirmed that the information raised many questions in his mind, too. We swiftly removed the news release from our Web site and contacted the submitting organization."

    Scientist Osvaldo Canziani, who was part of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was listed as the scientific advisor to the report.

    The IPCC, whose figures were cited as the basis for the study's projections, and Al Gore jointly won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007 "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change," the prize committee said at the time.

    Canziani's spokesman said Tuesday he was ill and was unavailable for interviews.

    The study cited the UN group's figures for its projections, combined with "the business-as-usual path the world is currently following," said lead author Liliana Hisas of the Universal Ecological Fund (UEF), a non-profit group headquartered in Argentina.

    But climate scientist Rey Weymann told AFP that the "study contains a significant error in that it confuses 'equilibrium' temperature rise with 'transient temperature rise.'"

    (Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


    It is good that they removed the information that was in error. No way in heck is the planet going to warm 2.4c by the 2020s. Maybe not in 100 years.
     
  2. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,295
    Ten years, no. 90 years? Let's see what happens in the Arctic in the next 20 years.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. skookerasbil
    Online

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,155
    Thanks Received:
    2,910
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,179
    Global warming is a hoax..............been saying it for over 10 years. This is simply more fodder regarding the level of scam............
     
  4. skookerasbil
    Online

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,155
    Thanks Received:
    2,910
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,179
    scam
     
  5. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    whats this climate change euphemism you speak of? you mean Global Warming?
     
  6. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,684



    Yep, me too. It seems the thickness is getting way up there. The ice may be young, but it is thicker than it has been in years.

    Hide the decline - Latest News (hidethedecline)
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,295
  8. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,938
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,678
    Why can't you just admit you were wrong? How hard is that?

    You: "Listen guys, I'm sorry. I really thought that GW was a threat, I realize now it's a giant scam to control people and take their money. I'm so sorry!" :frown:

    Us: "It's cool man, let's just move on to something else ok?".

    How hard is that?
     
  9. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,654
    Thanks Received:
    4,594
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,138
    Is not a 9 point cascadia subduction zone quake on the scale of the Indian ocean one in 2004 a threat? Scientist found that in 1700 a monster quake hit the northwestern United states, these are geologist and they are doing the same thing around here. Same thing with the warming. Right?
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2011
  10. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,684



    The difference is the theory of plate tectonics (to use the generalised term) has been well substantiated by empirical data. AGW has not. Theorists who must resort to fabricating data have a real problem.
     

Share This Page