Climate change study had 'significant error': experts

[ScienceRocks]

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ten years, no. 90 years? Let's see what happens in the Arctic in the next 20 years.

 

[skookerasbil]

Global warming is a hoax..............been saying it for over 10 years. This is simply more fodder regarding the level of scam............

 

[skookerasbil]

scam

 

[Trajan]

whats this climate change euphemism you speak of? you mean Global Warming?

 

[westwall]

Ten years, no. 90 years? Let's see what happens in the Arctic in the next 20 years.

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)

 

[Old Rocks]

http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcu...em-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2775/27751301.jpg

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

 

[Mad Scientist]

http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcu...em-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2775/27751301.jpg

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

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!"

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

How hard is that?

 

[ScienceRocks]

http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcu...em-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2775/27751301.jpg

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

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!"

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

How hard is that?

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?

 

[westwall]

http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcu...em-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2775/27751301.jpg

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

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!"

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

How hard is that?

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?

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.

 

[Mad Scientist]

http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcu...em-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2775/27751301.jpg

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

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!"

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

How hard is that?

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?

The earth's climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. In that time a vast array of species have come into existence and died out. You and I ain't gonna' destroy the planet with our SUV's!

When the population reaches an unsustainable level sometime in the future, we will die off until an equilibrium is reached. Just like other animals in the wild have done, are doing and will do.

The Dinosaurs died off millions of years ago yet the earth still rotates. How can that be?

People are wise to your global warming scam and are rejecting it. Face up to the facts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global warming is a hoax..............been saying it for over 10 years. This is simply more fodder regarding the level of scam............

Hey Skookerasbill! Need a ride?

 

[BrianH]

Simple questions:

What caused the ice-age? --:Lack of cars and industrial exhaust maybe.

What ended the ice age?--: Cow farts?

What caused the little ice-age during the 1700s? Maybe is was that mustang George Washing was driving in the ford commercial...

What ended the little ice-age???

Fact: The climate may be changing, but if it is, it's not being caused by humans, considering the things listed above....that the earth has heated and cooled before (often rapidly) before the existence of humans and before automobiles and industry.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Simple questions:

What caused the ice-age? --:Lack of cars and industrial exhaust maybe.

What ended the ice age?--: Cow farts?

What caused the little ice-age during the 1700s? Maybe is was that mustang George Washing was driving in the ford commercial...

What ended the little ice-age???

Fact: The climate may be changing, but if it is, it's not being caused by humans, considering the things listed above....that the earth has heated and cooled before (often rapidly) before the existence of humans and before automobiles and industry.

What caused the glacieral periods and inner-glacieral periods. They where caused by differences in orbit around the sun---one had more of a oval and the other more circle like orbit around the star. Another thing is the incline of our rotion of the earth,,,A more north to south rotation caused a decrease in solar energy hitting the poles. The interglacial---These periods warmed the oceans, which are carbon sinks leading to release of the co2 into the Atmosphere. This enhanced the warming...But as the orbit changed into one that takes the earth slightly further on the means then the solar output went down and caused the oceans to decrease in temperature and ice to form, which both worked together in sucking up the co2...Most records show the typical min to max throughout the 800 thousand year record to be 170 to 300 ppm co2. 300 within the interglacial periods.

What caused the little ice age? A decrease in soar energy because of a grand minimum from 1300-1800 ad. Nothing what so ever to do with george washington and his car.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ten years, no. 90 years? Let's see what happens in the Arctic in the next 20 years.

It recovered from the heat wave from the 1920's to 1940's, I imagine it will recover this time too. In fact all evidence indicates it is doing EXACTLY that.

 

[konradv]

Simple questions:

What caused the ice-age? --:Lack of cars and industrial exhaust maybe.

What ended the ice age?--: Cow farts?

What caused the little ice-age during the 1700s? Maybe is was that mustang George Washing was driving in the ford commercial...

What ended the little ice-age???

Fact: The climate may be changing, but if it is, it's not being caused by humans, considering the things listed above....that the earth has heated and cooled before (often rapidly) before the existence of humans and before automobiles and industry.

You have no way of knowing that. Just because heating or cooling had some cause in the past, doesn't mean it has the same cause today. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like the fact that humans put more CO2 into the atmosphere in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. Make fun all you want, but like many you're just having a politically-motivated, knee-jerk reaction and not thinking it through logically and scientifically.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Plate tectonics has been substantiated by actual physical data and evidence, that even the layman can understand.

The anthropogenic climatic googly-moogly, not so much.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oddie, your ignorance is showing again.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

And, yes, I keep posting that site. It is from the American Institute of Physics. Real scientists writing about real science. Not undegreed ex-TV weatherman trying to bend the data, or outright lying about the data. Not rightwingnut political sites.

Just real science from real scientists.

 

[Oddball]

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

 

[Old Rocks]

And if you were to read the whole context, you would see that he is speaking of the fact that the warming we are seeing is not as much as it should be by the models. So, is the extra heat being stored somewhere, is it being reflected, where is it?

In the meanwhile, we are seeing far more effects from the present rate of heating than any of the models predicted, or predict at present, for that matter.

In other words, you are entirely correct when you state we do not have a good handle on all that is going on in the climatic response to the very rapid increase in GHGs. Unfortunetly, the predictions of the alarmists seem to be rather conservative when compared to what we are seeing now in weather events and in the arctic.