Claims of Himalayan Glacier Disaster Melt Away 561
Hugh Pickens writes "VOA News reports that leaders of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have apologized for making a 'poorly substantiated' claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. Scientists who identified the mistake say the IPCC report relied on news accounts that appear to have misquoted a scientific paper — which estimated that the glaciers could disappear by 2350, not 2035. Jeffrey Kargel, an adjunct professor at the University of Arizona who helped expose the IPCC's errors, said the botched projections were extremely embarrassing and damaging. 'The damage was that IPCC had, or I think still has, such a stellar reputation that people view it as an authority — as indeed they should — and so they see a bullet that says Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 and they take that as a fact.' Experts who follow climate science and policy say they believe the IPCC should re-examine how it vets information when compiling its reports. 'These errors could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected,' write the researchers."
Shhhh! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think that's bad, for each of these errors that gets publicized, vast swaths of the population lose faith in the mountain of scientific evidence for anything whatsoever, including support for man-made global warming.
Re:Shhhh! (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think that's bad, for each of these errors that gets publicized, vast swaths of the population lose faith in the mountain of scientific evidence for anything whatsoever, including support for man-made global warming..
The same vast swathes would lose faith in scientific evidence if the local quack saw the image of a fictional deity in a piece of foodstuff.
Now, this is the sort of error that should not be occurring. Yes, it in no way undermines the rest of the IPCC report, but the report should still be held to the highest standards of rigour. To dismiss the error as petty, and that it can be left now it has been corrected, would be to commit a grave mistake. For a subject as complex and important as the impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on climate change, continuous and rigorous checking of data should always be performed. Working from an informed 'devils advocate' viewpoint should be encouraged, and not be shunned as "Denialism/shilling for Big Oil/The Gubernmint/etc". That does not absolve criticisms from being subject to the same high standards of rigour, though, as otherwise crack-pottery will prevail.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, this is an embarrassing mistake on the part of working group 2 of the IPCC. When news of this story broke, I wondered why I'd never noticed these ludicrous statements before. Then I realized that the mistake wasn't in the report from working group 1, which is all I'd ever bothered to read. Here's [www.ipcc.ch] what each working group does:
Re:Shhhh! (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you make of the fact that the IPCC Chairman used these claims to get millions in grant money? [timesonline.co.uk]
Doesn't sounds like a minor mistake, does it? He used in multiple grant applications the totally bogus figures they've had to "correct".
This seems to validate all the "deniers" claims that global warming is just a fraudulent industry designed to keep funding going for the scientists involved by scaring people. The leftists look the other way because they use the man-made global warming alarmism to push through their preferred socialist agenda. That's why they get so angry at anyone who comes up with an alternate solution to the problem [nytimes.com]. They're not trying to solve a problem, they're using it as an excuse to grab the power to make people do what they want them to do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is a logical contradiction in your reasoning:
This seems to validate all the "deniers" claims that global warming is just a fraudulent industry designed to keep funding going for the scientists involved by scaring people.
So global warming is a fraud - there is no global warming, and hence no problem?
That's why they get so angry at anyone who comes up with an alternate solution to the problem [nytimes.com].
But now global warming is real and is a problem?
(For the record, Levitt is not a "denier" - he writes "Like those who are criticizing us, we believe that rising global temperatures are a man-made phenomenon and that global warming is an important issue to solve. ")
Re:Shhhh! (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you make of the fact that the IPCC Chairman used these claims to get millions in grant money?
Doesn't sounds like a minor mistake, does it?
Of course its not a mistake. That's what I've been saying for a long time now. Most of the human climate change evidence is complete bullshit - and obviously so. Anyone notice there is a steady stream of large corrections over the last year or so?
The computer modules that so many use to fear monger with, are proved invalid almost on a daily basis. The exaguration! That's factually true. Here's how it works. They take historical data and tweak the computer module so that it matches projections over the next couple of months. If the simulation matched the trend, they argue that validates their model. In other words, did history match their projections?
After that, they then run a future simulation which shows the end of the world. They take that simulation to beg for more money. Then when new data comes out, without fail, it completely invalidates their model and projections. So they then take the new data, tweak their model again, and repeat. This has been true with EVERY computer simulation to date with no exceptions. Not one. And this has been repeating for a decade or more now. Anyone who believes the computer models which show dire consequences are completely ignorant of the facts. To date, all climate change simulations have been proved to be factually inaccurate at every turn. This is absolutely not science! Period.
You need to keep in mind, MANY computer models showed that the world is under water RIGHT NOW! Yet you don't hear that mentioned do you? Why is that? Seems they just needed to tweak their model just one more time...and the pesky thing like facts keep getting in their way.
And for those that would call troll or flamebait, how do you think they develop and validate their models if not by adjusting and correcting with new data as it becomes available? Ya, reality is harsh; especially when the true facts indicate most of these guys are completely full of shit, all to obtain yet an additional round of funding.
Factually, the computer simulations which show these horrible things are simply toys and constantly prove to be false. Without fail. No exceptions. Period. Generally speaking, they show themselves to be incorrect even one year out and they then use these to make predictions decades, centuries, and millenium out - and yet they can't accurately predict the next year. That's what any reasonable person would call bullshit - yet everyone calls it substantiated fact.
Then we have the steady stream of stories showing unsubstantiated sources references, data exclusion because it contradicts their claims, and ignoring of validated sources which indicate ice loss in some locations is being replaced by ice in new locations.
At this point, any reasonable person would stand up and yell bullshit. I guess fear mongering is easier to sell than is hard science. Because to date, the most of the "evidence" is anything but hard science. Its what reasonable people call, "bullshit."
Now that's not to say global climate change isn't happening. I'm not saying that. What I am saying is its accurate to say there is a lot of scientifically unsound science driving a lot of fear mongering which in turn is driving lots of science grants. In other words, bullshit for money. Furthermore, most of the evidence which points a finger at man is extremely questionable on the best of days. And all of these computer models which show doom and gloom, to date, are completely useless - aside from obtaining additional grant money. Could they be right? Sure! But the science absolutely does not say what these people are saying. Unless of course, the scientific method includes hand picking your study samples.
Realistically, we have no fucking clue what's going on or what will happen and anyone how says otherwise has a bridge to sale or parroting because they don't know the true state of things. Is it possible man is behind it? Yes! Is there proof? Nope!
Re:Shhhh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Yes, it in no way undermines the rest of the IPCC report, but the report should still be held to the highest standards of rigour."
No, it does legitimately cast suspicion on the rest of the IPCC report. If they put one thing in the report based on unsubstantiated news articles then the rigour they used in other areas of the report is questionable. Their conclusions may still be correct, but the quality of the report itself is very much diminished.
This was a stupid, stupid mistake. They should have known
Re:Shhhh! (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are summarizing from research papers, which research paper used the news misquotes?
> as though an error in one paragraph on one page means that all thousands of pages are totally invalid.
But how do we know whether their other conclusions are valid or not when the IPCC is generating some conclusions from news agency misquotes?
If we have to verify their stuff and go through the research ourselves, why bother with the IPCC?
It's their job to be rigorous with their conclusions and the analysis leading to their _public_ releases, not our job.
I agree that the global warming issue is important, and it is certain that humans are affecting climate. But their conclusions may influence what Governments and entire countries do. And likely negatively in economic terms.
If they can't do their jobs properly why should their possibly invalid conclusions be used to affect the lives of billions of people in the world?
They have to do far far better than Slashdot editors.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems to me that you are setting an impossible standard here.
If they can't do their jobs properly why should their possibly invalid conclusions be used to affect the lives of billions of people in the world?
The same could be said for the US Congress (or the british Parliament). Basically any collection of humans given authority could be said to be completely unworthy of our trust. Police make mistakes all the time, why trust them with law enforcement? Food companies make mistakes all the time, why trust them with food? Airports make mistakes all the time, why trust them with flying?
You have a right to be skeptical, sure. But at some point eac
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Credibility is critical for the IPCC. It is close to their "reason for existence".
If the IPCC loses too much credibility, too few may listen to them (and their mistakes be used as excuses to not do the right stuff) in which case the IPCC might as well pack up and stop wasting resources, and a new organization be created
Re:Shhhh! (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, people are going to leap on this as though an error in one paragraph on one page means that all thousands of pages are totally invalid.
If this were the only error, I could look past it. Unfortunately, this kinda stuff seems to multiply. For example, how many of those thousands of papers used this one flawed report? How many of these papers used the debunked data used to create the "hockey stick graph"? How many papers used the data from models designed "hide the decline" and "fudge factor" subroutines?
The problem is not the single error. The problem is that the raw data itself is in error. Someone doing a research paper is not going to present data that contradicts his conclusion. The authors are going to find other research and data that actually backs their paper. So, how many of these otherwise accurate research papers are based on flawed data?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
reference: http://web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf [arizona.edu]
number of papers used in this one flawed report: none
hockey stick graphs created from this: none
papers from "hide the decline" subroutines: none
errors in raw data: none (this was a error in a projection, not an observation)
accurate papers based on flawed data: some, but not in this case.
Sorry, I gotta call BS. First of all, the hockey stick graph was on the front page of a major IPCC report and other papers as well. The author of the Hockey stick graph is all over the place. From Michael E Mann's Wiki page:
He was a Lead Author on the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report (2001). He has been organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences ‘Frontiers of Science’ and has served as a committee member or advisor for other National Academy of Sciences panels. He served as editor for the Journal of Climate and has been a member of numerous international and U.S. scientific advisory panels and steering groups.
CRU, the place where all those emails came from PROVIDED TEMPERATURE DATA TO THE IPCC! From HERE [aps.org]
The CRU maintains the repository for temperature measurements used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
I'm sure I could find more, but I didn't have more than 2 minutes to spend on this.
Re:Shhhh! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are you so obsessed with, out of thousands of entire papers containing tens of thousands of graphs, a single decade+ old graph which was primarily used for general public-illustrative purposes and which has been superceded many times over? What do you think you're accomplishing by harping on it? Heck, the graphs that superceded it which are *not* controversial in the scientific community (some using easier to calibrate datasets such as boreholes, for example, as well as others that use revised dendrochronology datasets) and which still have the same general shape (just with a small blip for the medieval warm period that wasn't present in Mann)
Because Mann, who made the hockey stick graph, couldn't produce his data when requested. He said he had misplaced it. You would think that the data could be found by simply going to his "works sited" section of any his papers, but evidently, he didn't site his sources. Mann is incompetent at best, fraudulent at worst, but certainly egotistical. Unfortunately, as I've shown in my previous post, Mann is still very active and large within the AGW community and still contributes to publications, decides what gets published, and this is the most unfortunate part, advises governments on climate policy.
Yes, CRU has *a* temperature dataset used in the IPCC reports. It's just one of three major and a dozen or so minor datasets. And what is your complaint with the CRU dataset?
For obvious reasons, I don't trust anything that comes out of the CRU. These guys have been proven to be frauds by using their own words. They are insult to honourable scientists worldwide. What's really sad, if man is destroying the earth via CO2 emissions, they have done more to discredit the movement and help destroy the climate than every SUV owner combined! Climate change alarmists, more than anyone, should be calling for these guy's heads on a platter!
Re:Shhhh! (Score:5, Insightful)
If these kind of errors are indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered, then the public *should* lose faith in the claims of science.
Exactly why does science deserve to be put upon a pedestal unquestioned, anyway?
Re:Shhhh! (Score:5, Insightful)
I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC's claims. Science requires that scientific work, claims, publications etc. undergo some degree of peer review which is exactly what happened. The IPCC made a claim which was analyzed and corrected by a scientist. Error correction is one of the most remarkable traits of science that is completely absent in its alternatives (pseudoscience, political infighting etc.)
Re:Shhhh! (Score:5, Informative)
I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC's claims. Science requires that scientific work, claims, publications etc. undergo some degree of peer review which is exactly what happened. The IPCC made a claim which was analyzed and corrected by a scientist. Error correction is one of the most remarkable traits of science that is completely absent in its alternatives (pseudoscience, political infighting etc.)
Sorry, but that's naive BS. Removed this week after British media reports? People were talking about this two months ago...
Here's a blog post from 12/1/09:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-imminent-demise-of-glaciers-due-to-a-typo/ [pajamasmedia.com]
See the primary sources here:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001065/106523e.pdf [unesco.org] (p 66)
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR4/website/10.pdf [ipcc-wg2.gov] (p 493)
And I'm sure *someone* knew about this before then, but simply didn't go public about it.
Someone want to remind me why I should trust the IPCC (or climate "science") again?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because of this:
"The damage was that IPCC had, or I think still has, such a stellar reputation that people view it as an authority -- as indeed they should -- and so they see a bullet that says Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 and they take that as a fact," he said.
Kargel is one of four scientists who addressed the issue in a letter that will be published in the Jan. 29 issue of the journal Science. "These errors could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected," write the researchers.
(From here [nytimes.com])
Scientists fuck up. They are human. They don't do their jobs correctly all the time. They miss-read graphs, miss-interpret data, they allow their own personal biases to interfere with their work.
But their work isn't the Ten Commandments. It's not the Ultimate Truth. It's not set in stone, the word of god, never able to be questioned or overturned.
Four scientists looked at it and realized it was wrong. What did they do? They researched it. They looked into
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your wonderful description of the scientific method describes elegantly why I trust it so much.
What does the scientific method have to do with the IPCC?
The IPCC is not a scientific authority, so when YOU say that 'your wonderful description of the scientific method describes elegantly why I trust it so much' I've just got to laugh my ass off at how naive you are.
If you were talking about the NOAA, or NASA GISS, or some other organization involved in the actual performance of the scientific method... then you might have a leg to stand on.. but what you've just said is that you trust the IPCC beca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd expect these kind of people to do things like check that monitoring stations are correctly sited. But the only such checking appears to be being carried out by volunteers at surfacestations.org. With their finding only 10% of such stations are as good as they should be.
Re:Shhhh! (Score:5, Informative)
CO-ORDINATING LEAD AUTHOR OF IPCC 2007 Report on ASIA ADMITS HE KNEW DATA WASN'T VERIFIED. [dailymail.co.uk]
There we have it. Scientists with an agenda.
Who's being naive?
Re:Shhhh! (Score:4, Informative)
OH NOES! Climate data being faked for political purposes! What's next? Climate data being faked to scam grant money? Oops! Already happened!
The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion's share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers....he Carnegie money was specifically given to aid research into "the potential security and humanitarian impact on the region" as the glaciers began to disappear. Pachauri has since acknowledged that this threat, if it exists, will take centuries to have any serious effect.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece/ [timesonline.co.uk]
Climate change continues to be a horse ridden by people with personal and political agendas. It continues to amaze how an entire generation has been duped into believing correlation equals causation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you saying that the scientist didn't make the quotes in that article?
Discovered by "crackpots", initially (Score:5, Insightful)
I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC's claims.
Well actually anyone questioning these claims when first produced were called "crackpot" by the IPCC. So in fact there were other groups that pointed it out, but as is par for the course with AGW any questioning, no matter how scientific, is treated as heresy and ridiculed. Which leads to to wonder what other views currently being labeled as "crackpot" are actually just as valid.
Just how and why do you think the IPCC admitted to this error? It's not because they did any research into the claim themselves beyond the initial production, they had to be shown the door and then led through it. It was only when the embarrassment could not be contained further they were forced to make a statement.
Peer review? (Score:4, Insightful)
While peer review is better than unquestioned authority, it does have a remarkable blind side. The adage of mutual back-scratching and the fox guarding the hen house is all too appropriate.
The problem is that genuinely independent review of science is hard to come by. Consider for example how science treats dissenters such as Michael Behe. When a scientist points out valid problems in papers discussing evolution, he's villified as a creationist. And the interesting part is that his objections are entirely scientific, which incenses the Darwinists even more. Instead of pointing out that his critical analysis makes evolutionary biology a better, more rigorous discipline, his university publishes a disclaimer against him.
The IPCC scandal and Behe controversies have illustrated quite clearly that modern science is more about consensus than critical thought. While I agree that science *can* provide us with solutions to environmental problems of today and tomorrow, I'm wise enough to realize that it *often* fails to do so for reasons which have nothing to do with science.
People are starting to realize that calling something "science" doesn't make it true, nor does it make it science.
Re:Peer review? (Score:4, Informative)
Very very bad example. Behe *is* a creationist. His view of biology and creationism/evolution is faulty at the least and intentionally dishonest at worst. The Intelligent Design movement is a perfect example of what happens when there's plenty of backscrating going on and little if any actual peer review.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When Dawkins asserts that evolution disproves God's existence, he's warmly welcomed by science. Nevermind the fact that he can't distinguish between science and philosophy, nor understand the limitations of the former.
I've actually been to a talk by Dawkins and he addressed this. He's not saying that science has proof God does not exist, he's saying the burden of proof shouldn't be on proving the non-existence of God. Given that there are no documented case of paranormal activity of any kind under proper observing conditions (and if you can offer anything like that, feel free to claim the Randi foundation's prize [randi.org]), the burden of proof should be on the religious group to prove that He does exist. After all, very few pe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"When a scientist points out valid problems in papers discussing evolution, he's villified as a creationist."
Are you kidding? Scientific debates rage about the mechanics of evolution. Theories like kin selection go in and out of favour. If someone could come up with a good, scientific alternative to the whole theory of evolution that describes the data better, he or she most definitely would. That would be your-name-gets-remembered-forever kind of stuff.
Behe is most famous for his argument that certain
Re:Shhhh! (Score:4, Insightful)
faith in the claims of science
That word you keep using...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If these kind of errors are indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered, then the public *should* lose faith in the claims of science.
Exactly why does science deserve to be put upon a pedestal unquestioned, anyway?
But science is still the best we've got. Considering we live in a society where people still forward chain letters, and avoid walking under ladders; I'd take slightly questionable science over the lay persons so-called 'common sense' in a heart beat.
Re:Shhhh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shhhh! (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, it IS in WGII, whereas the scientific case for global warming is laid out in WGI, so this doesn't affect that part directly, but really how can you explain away what this guy has said [dailymail.co.uk]:
We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was "grey literature" [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal].......It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."
The guy basically said he knew it might not be true, but he put it in anyway because he thought it might influence policy-makers. How can you not be annoyed by that?
At very least when I read the IPCC report now, I'm going to have to check their references, until now I was willing to accept it as fairly accurate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Either way, you can't deny that the IPCC used a sorry old reference as one of their sources, that never should have made it into the report.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, I like the IPCC report too, and I'm still going to suggest people read
In the same report (Score:3, Interesting)
I do not agree that this was more than a dyslexic typo that went unchallenged for far too long.
It's a good thing the correlation between global warming and extreme weather disasters like hurricanes and floods in the same report is still on a sound foundation then. Oh, wait... [timesonline.co.uk]
When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."
Ouch.
The climate is warming. The climate has been warming from 10,000-15,000 years, and we should be glad of that. It's hard to grow crops on a glacier. 15,000 years ago much of the US was under immense glaciers, as was much of Europe. Now they are not in our current Holocene epoch, which is why this is called an "inter-glac [wikipedia.org]
Re:Shhhh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the head of the IPCC came out fighting, calling the claims 'voodoo science', when it was pointed out that the error had been made. I am ok with errors being made, but what upsets me hugely in the AGW debate is that both sides throw out anything to do with science in favour of simply attacking each other from a position of idealism.
It wasn't a typo, it was a poorly researched claim that they defended when the error was pointed out to them.
Re:Shhhh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Testable yes. Fixable....not by the scientists it isn't.
They're not just presenting a theory. They're presenting a course of action which will result in worldwide suffering and decreased standard of living, because they're asking us to "make due with less energy."
Not just carbon-spewing energy either, or the focus on shutting things down would be coal before oil before natural gas, and on bring things online like nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric power, as well as increased grid capacity because we'd be using electricity for ever increasing percentages of things.
But that's not what we're being asked to do. We're being asked to replace all of our lights with mercury-filled, uv-leaking arc-lamps, even in places where they really aren't better than conventional incandescents. We're being asked to take shorter showers, and they better not be hot showers. And a whole host of other retail-level measures that will save maybe one plant in aggregate.
We're being asked to switch to lower yield farming techniques. And to mingle our food supply with our transportation fuel supply.
And we're being asked this by people who can't find parking for their private jets that they flew to the conference in. And we're being asked this because if we only just don't enjoy life, we'll save enough energy to be able to skip putting in a nuclear power plant or wind farm near a rich person's view of the nantucket shoals.
If the proponents believed in the problem (and I'm not saying there isn't one, only that the proponents are doing a terrible job of communicating it. It's almost as if they want to shed doubt....) then they would be working to replace current levels of energy use with cleaner sources, not proselytizing the ascetic lifestyle that is every Calvinist's wet dream.
And after we go down that road, suppose the evidence suggests we didn't need to. What will we do about the people who wasted time doing things the eco way that they could have spent doing things they enjoy? What about the people who will have to use the 3kW medical machine that replaced the 5kW model that only worked 10% more effectively? What about the people who simply can't get food because there isn't enough energy somewhere in the chain to deliver it to them? Or the coastal nation that must weather severe drought because they are prevented from building (energy intensive) desalination plants?
How will the scientists fix "monkeying with the economy" if they turn out to have made grave errors in the calculation? It isn't a matter of publishing some errata and having work for another dozen grad students to write papers about. There are real lives that will be affected if we base policy on this, so they better the f put some effort into keeping mistakes out of policy recommendations.
Re:Shhhh! (Score:5, Interesting)
I like to tell people that I'm not going to believe this country (US) is serious about energy conservation until Democrats can see the Milky Way. Then it's fun to let people sputter for a while before explaining: If you compare a satellite image of the US at night, to a political map showing red/blue counties in a fairly close national race, you see that the lighted areas are mostly blue, and the blue areas are mostly lighted.
When we stop throwing megawatts into production of photons that will never be intercepted by a human retina, then a typical Democrat will be able to step outside on a clear night, look up, and see the Milky Way. Until then, there's just too much light pollution for the typical Democrat to see the night sky clearly, and IMO the country is not serious about conserving energy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This should be seen as a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Correction of errors is what separates science from religion.
But I wonder if the press will tell people this strengthens the case, not weakens it? (ie. evidence was scrutinized and corrected)
A typo (Score:4, Insightful)
Gpasp, there was a TYPO in a summary report, and the editing process didn't catch it.
A typo.
In a summary report. Not in an actual scientific paper. Not even in the _science_ summary (which is IPCC working group 1 report, "Physical Science Basis of Climate Change"-- this was the WG-2 report.).
Yes, it's an annoying typo-- 2350 is significantly different from 2035. Nevertheless, note that the error is NOT in any of the science papers-- it was in a summary report. It should have been edited better (especially as, it turns out, one of the reviewers actually pointed out the error, but his correction didn't make it in), but bad editing in the summary says absolutely nothing about the science. And, in fact, the scientists pointed it out and published the correction in a major venue.
The problem is, the deniers believe that even one error in a summary report means that the science is wrong, while the scientists are all aware that, yes, it's a bitch, but indeed, sometimes typos creep through.
All of you who have never had a typo show up uncorrected, feel free to kvetch.
Re:A typo (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about? The IPCC claimed the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. They based this on an article, based on an article, based on offhand speculation of a single scientist, who admits is was pure speculation with no supporting fact.
This wasn't a typo. It was damningly shoddy work on the part of the IPCC.
Re:A typo (Score:5, Informative)
What are you talking about? The IPCC claimed the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. They based this on an article, based on an article, based on offhand speculation of a single scientist, who admits is was pure speculation with no supporting fact.
This wasn't a typo. It was damningly shoddy work on the part of the IPCC.
The paragraph starts, "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world." Cogley and Michael Zemp of the World Glacier Monitoring System said Himalayan glaciers are melting at about the same rate as other glaciers.
From the AP report:
The mistakes were found not by skeptics like Michaels, but by a few of the scientists themselves, including one who is an IPCC co-author.
The report in question is the second of four issued by the IPCC in 2007 on global warming. This 838-page document had chapters on each continent. The errors were in a half-page section of the Asia chapter. The section got it wrong as to how fast the thousands of glaciers in the Himalayas are melting, scientists said.
"It is a very shoddily written section," said Graham Cogley, a professor of geography and glaciers at Trent University in Peterborough, Canada, who brought the error to everyone's attention. "It wasn't copy-edited properly."
Cogley, who wrote a letter about the problems to Science magazine that was published online Wednesday, cited these mistakes:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, in hundreds of pages, this is the first major error that's been found. That's not a bad record, and considering the political will to find errors, and the amount of scrutiny the IPCC reports receive, that's pretty good.
Second, we can judge the strength of the rest of the IPCC's work by examining how they responded to a legitimate error: they accepted it, and corrected it. We now have evidence that they are willing to make changes that improve the
Re:A typo (Score:5, Informative)
About as much a typo as your claim. If you RTFM (I know, asking a lot on /.), you will see that the UN Panel wrote the number in the report based on "a 2005 publication by the World Wildlife Fund. The WWF itself had picked it up from a 1999 magazine article based on a phone interview with an Indian scientist". In other words, the UN Panel read a random non-scientific report and used the erroneous prediction presented there. There is a massive failure here -- by the UN Panel when they relied on non-scientific sources for important predictions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, the original mistake was a typo. The IPCC mistake was NOT a typo. It was using information from dubious sources without checking it.
The actual typo/dates don't matter. If the IPCC report had said 2350 it would still be a problem.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
FTFA
The chairman of the IPCC panel, Rajendra Pachauri, on Saturday called the forecast "a regrettable error," and says it arose because established procedures were not diligently followed. "The whole paragraph, I mean that entire section is wrong. That was a mistake," said Pachauri..
You may have to dig in a bit more than the summary, but this as not just a typo.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A typo (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that gullible idiots like you make unwarranted assumptions about the quality of the scientific evidence based on no more than faith. And every piece of evidence to the contrary is summarily ignored.
The problem isn't with the "deniers" who are pointing all of these problems out. The "deniers" don't deny climate change or even global warming. They just deny the right of censorious assholes like you to claim that climate change is a) unprecedented and b) caused by man-made fossil fuels without actual engineering-quality reports showing either of these things to be true or even likely. They aren't the ones in denial - it's you.
The smell from underneath the IPCC bandages is pretty bad. The proxy reconstructions of past climate have been shown to be heavily cherry-picked and badly done statistics [climateaudit.org], the measurement of surface temperatures by NOAA and NASA appears been heavily manipulated to show warming [investors.com], as has the temperature records from the Climate Research Unit [scienceand...policy.org] relied upon for the calibration of climate models - and is the subject of several independent investigations for possible scientific fraud in the US and the UK.
But you'll ignore it all because it comes from "deniers" and you'll invoke preposterous conspiracy theories involving fossil fuel companies while ignoring the cosying up of nearly entire fossil fuel industry with the alarmists.You'll ignore the clear conflict of interest of the scientist who made the original bad claim on Himalayan Glaciers claiming millions from the European Union [eu-highnoon.org] to investigate the problem that he knows doesn't exist. You'll ignore the clear conflict of interest [wattsupwiththat.com] of Rajendra Pachauri and his willingness to fill his pockets with cash [blogspot.com] all the while exhorting everyone else to embrace the New Poverty of enforced energy rationing to Save the Earth from Global Warming that no-one knows is even happening to any great extent nor even a serious problem that can be "fixed".
Those aren't typos. The entire climate science story is falling apart as scientists investigate clear evidence of fraud, conscious manipulation of evidence in order to deceive and junk science.
The "deniers" are not the problem - its the neo-creationists like you who keep waving away that "there's nothing to be seen here - move along" while the Global Warming Hysteria explodes behind you.
And yes, I'm a liberal. A very angry liberal.
Re:A typo (Score:5, Insightful)
The lead author of the chapter on Asia, Dr Murari Lal, has admitted [wattsupwiththat.com] that the story about Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 was known by him to be false when it was made but it was deliberately left in to put pressure on politicians.
Dr Syed Hasnain, the man who made the original claim about glaciers, now works for Rajendra Pachauri and applied for grants from the EU to study the problem [timesonline.co.uk] he knew fine well did not exist.
Conflict of interest? Scandalous misappropriation of funds?
Naah. It's just a typo. A storm in a teacup.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
was known by him to be false when it was made
Not true. Not even the Daily Mail cherry picked quote says that the claim was known to be false. The actual quote was:
"We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was 'grey literature' [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors."
So, they knew that one source hadn't been peer-reviewed, but quoted from it
Dislexyia? (Score:5, Funny)
which estimated that the glaciers could disappear by 2350, not 2035.
Dislexyia... that would be my excuse if I were them... :-)
Four YEARS? (Score:5, Informative)
According to the NY Times article, a scientist (Georg Kaser) warned the working group in 2006 that the findings were erroneous. How did it take four years to bubble up?
I'd call that a pretty glacial response time. (rimshot)
Re:Four YEARS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Four YEARS? (Score:5, Insightful)
And anything that dares to contradict the AGW-believers is treated with derision and actively attacked, instead of investigated. You know, exactly the opposite of science.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me summarize:
Random person: Hey, Scientists! You're wrong!
Scientist: How exactly? Do you have any evidence?
Random person: Look! They're not being scientific because they don't research my claims!
*Far, far away, the scientist suddenly face-palms, and doesn't quite know why*
Re:Four YEARS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me pick a random website to cite an example...
www.climateaudit.org
<climateaudit> Hey guys, I noticed something a bit weird about your figures - here's what's weird...
<Scientists> PREPOSTEROUS! LIES! DENIER! SCUMBAG! IDIOT! MORON!
<climateaudit> Er, ok. Lemme recheck..... yep gone over the figures again. Say, could you send me the raw data you used for your research?
<Scientists> DENIER! DENIER! LIES! I"D RATHER ERASE ALL THE RAW DATA THAN SEND IT TO SCUM LIKE YOU!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But in reality:
climateaudit: Hey guys, I noticed something a bit weird about your figures - here's what's weird...
Scientists: Sorry, but your model uses incorrect parameters. Use , and to adjust your model correctly, then it'll give another result.
climateaudit: You are suppressing the free thought! CO2 doesn't cause warming, it's the Sun! You have predicted Global Cooling in 70-s! The science is all wrong!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
simplistic i know but it has to make you think maybe they have it wrong?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I have cited the link to www.climateaudit.org [climateaudit.org], where anyone
can browse to and should read the history of what they did.
Your claim that Steve McIntyre went on to say:
.. is an outright lie - one which can be disproven by reading up on the site - where
you will see that McIntyre insists that replies to his posts about the science, be
kept to the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow. With that level of eloquence and reason, you should be on Fox News
Re:Four YEARS? (Score:5, Insightful)
^---[citation needed] YES they are bad. ANY and ALL scientific pieces of work should be able to stand up on the merits of their reserach and reasoning alone. Yes, scientists are also human and have human emotions - but as soon as they resort to insult they bring themselves down to the level of this alledged unscientific criticism, and hence open themselves up to doubt in the listener's mind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The general population isn't as stupid as you think you are.
Re:Four YEARS? (Score:4, Insightful)
And you think your maths and computer knowledge makes you an expert on climate change ?
For the record i have a comp science degree, it has nothing to do with climate change, i dont believe it makes my opinion any more qualified than the next person.
I know enough about science to give scientists the benefit of the doubt, i believe them unless i have a reason not to.
There is nothing wrong with being sceptical. There is something wrong with being sceptical and ignorant, demanding that other people conveniently show you the truth in a manner you request.
Re:Four YEARS? (Score:5, Insightful)
I tell you what, if they come to me and tell me I have to pay umteen thousands of dollars a year to follow the agenda of the environ whackos, they better have it fucking laid out song and verse and if I have questions they damned well better not call me names. If the don't and then do, they and you can go fuck yourself.
For that matter, before they try the bullshit cap and trade, they should be advocating nuclear energy. Because if everything they say is true, that is the only way out. Not fucking windmills or wave generators. Not solar or geothermal. The fact that they are not advocating this and want us to live in the fucking stone age means they are probably gaming the whole thing.
Re:Four YEARS? (Score:5, Informative)
And you think your maths and computer knowledge makes you an expert on climate change?
This does make him an expert in a different field. We call it specialization and is very important. An expert in one field is *required* to be able to communicate to people in other fields since most work is cross expert boundaries (modern science). Example, the simulation code is software with lots of math. Why the hell should he not be able to follow it?
Experts are often from other backgrounds too. I work in biology yet did my masters in physics and a PhD in computational biology. Switching fields is resnably common and not a black mark.
Finally there is no way to be "ordained" a climatologist. These guys are not the friken pope. They are not infallible or even special in any way. When they bring science into the public eye it is their *job* to explain to the rest. But if you think they can't even do that for a mathematician... well they are not very good at their job.
PS the IPCC report has a lot of "authors" who are not even scientist let alone climatologists.
Re:Four YEARS? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's too bad that there can't be a quiet, sensible discussion on the subject thanks to all the political baggage
And that's the problem. No one (or at least, no one in the general population) had heard of global warming / climate change until we had politicians saying "If you don't elect me so that I can pass X laws to stop GW / climate change, we will all die!" - and right from the beginning it was all a matter of politicians using it to get elected so that they can pass other laws that suit their personal views. The fact that as it gets more an more political we have more "evidence" is easily explained by 1) politicians paying people to find "proof" so that they can get elected and 2) people realizing that there's easy money in "proving" global warming.
Yes, I know many will mod me a troll for being skeptical - I don't care one way or another if the temperature is changing or not. However, since only about 4% of daily CO2 output is from man-made devices and we have plenty of proof of temperatures changing long before the industrial revolution, the claims of man-made global warming are a bunch of bullshit being used by people who want to pass laws to change society to how they feel it should be. The issue is not "are temperatures changing", the issue is "is this caused by human behavior" and there is absolutely no evidence that it is.
^--Why on earth is this marked as Troll? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is absolutely NOTHING troll-worthy in what amiga3D said.
See, this is what I've noticed about
people who can't subscribe to any anti-anthropogenic cuased global warming argument. So, anything
which is said against the AGW argument gets modded down.
FACT : AGW *IS* heavilly politicised.
FACT : anti-AGW arguments and reasoning appear to be met by insult,ridicule, and attempted censorship.
Honestly, people, if you can't simply argue your case for and against, in a reasonable manner, and have to
resort to insults, and censorship, then you have already lost the argument.
Re:Four YEARS? (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably the same way it took four years before they fixed that bug you reported in [software package of your choice].
Take home point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, some of the scientists that originally noticed this issue were afraid to bring it up because of the politically charged nature of this group. Shocking as it may sound, there are global warming scientists who denounce anyone who disagrees with them, and have the power to effect the funding of anyone who is not in lock step with the agenda.
Re:Take home point (Score:5, Informative)
The scientific process will probably ultimately work, but it doesn't always take the most direct route to the truth. I had heard accusations that the hockey stick graph was garbage, but I dismissed such claims as anti-scientific oil company propaganda. But after the climate gate emails came out I started looking at stuff a little closer. The disturbing thing is not the hockey stick graph itself, but the fact that they're STILL defending it. The hockey stick graph uses tree ring data that gives false temperatures for the last 50 years, but they're still trying to get us to believe that the temperatures those rings give from 1000 years ago are not false. Their analysis of evidence is so biased that they can't even see that that is absurd. The only excuse they seem to give on realclimate is that only some of the tree rings give false temperatures for the last 50 years. But if that's the case, and they knew some of the trees were giving false data, then why on earth would they use those known defective trees in their calculations? It's been reported that they used those defective trees because if they didn't, then the medieval warm period wouldn't be flattened out enough.
The climate crisis promoters have a tough job. Not only do they have to prove that the globe is warming, they have to prove that the warming is caused by humans. And then they still have to prove that the temperatures are significantly higher than they were at other times in the past. If the temperatures have gone from what they were when we started measuring them in the middle of the little ice age, and risen just up to normal, that would be global warming, and maybe even man made global warming, but nothing to worry about. The hockey stick graph and others like it are critical to their case that temperatures now are especially high. But it's very hard to accurately determine what the temperatures were a thousand years ago. In fact I doubt if it's even possible. Boreholes, sediments, and tree rings seem like very iffy measurement techniques. If we hadn't caught them sending emails about how they needed to crush the medieval warm period, then maybe we could put a little more weight to those past temperature reconstructions of theirs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You know, the real crux of the issue is the politicization.
Now, I'm not saying global warming isn't real, nor that it isn't human caused. However, I did download the global temperature data and ran stats on it.
And the result?
Wrong, 2035 figure questioned before IPCC changed (Score:3, Interesting)
There were a number of people who caught the error and questioned the figure as obviously false (anyone who knew anything about glaciers would know it could not possibly be true). It was the flood of reports like this one [cleanskies.com] that led them to look into where the source originally came from.
But again, the scientists that caught the error were absolutely not the IPCC and many of them do not support AGW. Indeed, the IPCC was all to happy to initially label anyone questioning the figure as a "crackpot" regardless
There's a problem with this coverage (Score:4, Insightful)
There is something absolutely wrong with the kind of media coverage. You're telling me that a transposition of digits within a report full of otherwise solid information is "highly damaging"? This is a false sense of even-handedness at best.
How is solid evidence of shrinking polar caps [nrdc.org] not highly damaging? The hard empirical fact that we've taken the atmospheric CO2 level from ~280 parts per million to over 370? The increasing ocean acidity from absorbing this increased CO2? The fact that widespread deforestation in the midst of de-sequestering carbon locked in oil and carbon and putting it back into the atmosphere on this level has a significant impact?
The question that will matter to all of us in coming years is not whether the IPCC had, in the midst of a large report of substance, accidentally transposed numbers when discussing a real and dangerous trend. It's not about whether or not you like Al Gore. It's not about the way scientists chattered in their emails while creating and testing computer simulations. This coverage of personality cult or anti-cult, the minor gaffes in an overwhelming body of documented evidence being treated even-handedly as if it thwarts all the rest, it is responsible for promoting complacency or belligerency in the face of a severe environmental threat.
Will we come to our senses already, or will it take soaring food prices and flooded cities and islands first?
Re:There's a problem with this coverage (Score:5, Informative)
Because it is not a transposition of digits. There simply is no forecast and the estimate that they put in is pure BS. From TFA:
"The IPCC apparently sourced its forecast on a 2005 publication by the World Wildlife Fund. The WWF itself had picked it up from a 1999 magazine article based on a phone interview with an Indian scientist.
Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, earlier this week, said that Himalayan glaciers are receding but he said the report they will vanish by 2035 is not based on scientific evidence. "
Re:There's a problem with this coverage (Score:5, Insightful)
I grew up in the military industrial complex. You know what the military did every time they wanted a shiny new toy? They created this big boogy man. Back then it was the "Soviets have this new Mig-25 that goes Mach 3+. We must have something to counter it". "The Soviets have this new T-80 tank, we need something to counter it". And the thing of it was the Military damn well knew that the T-80 was a dressed up T-72 and that the F-15 would beat a MIG-25 any day of the week. Yeah, the MIG-25 could go Mach 3....once before the engines had to be replaced. And the people in the defense industry as well as the DOD knew this, but they played the boogey man to Congress and the American people.
I'm sorry, but I see the same thing happening with this whole Environmental and Global Warming thing. Are there real problems out there? Should be trying not to pollute? Yes. But the tactics these people are using remind me too much of what I saw from the Defense industry.
These predictions reminds me of an article around 1900 that claimed that if trends continue, the horse manure on the streets of chicago would be 6 ft. deep by 1930. It never happened, the automobile came along and replaced horses. And that, perhaps, is the biggest problem with these predictions. The longer the predicted , the less likely the prediction is to be correct. Things change and I don't believe we have a model yet that works. I don't believe a working model can be created either. Show me one of these ecological dire predictions that I remember hearing in the 1970's and 1980's that have come to pass. I remember the presentations back then saying New York would be underwater by 2010! What about global dimming back in the 1970's? Whatever happened to that?
None of these models can even begin to take into account uncertainty. What happens if there is a massive Krakatoa type eruption in the next 50 years? Or in this case, the next 350 years? What if there continues to be a lack of sun spot activity for the next 350 years. It's happened before. Oh wait, the Little Ice Age was just a fluke right? We'd better adjust our data and pretend that it and the Medieval warm period never happened according to our models.
The problem is this has all become political. It's more about power and money than science at this point.
There are real environmental problems out there. Not only that, but they are problems affecting people's health and real steps we know work can be taken today to help clean them up and instead of spending the money and resources to help fix those problems, it looks as though we are going to spending a bunch of money world wide to fix a problem that is appearing to be more suspect everyday.
Re:There's a problem with this coverage (Score:5, Insightful)
In case you guys are wondering, this is what a moderate denier looks like. He looks like he's making sense, and his position seems perfectly rational and thought out, but that just makes it all the more dangerous because it's still wrong and full of logical fallacies.
I grew up in the military industrial complex. You know what the military did every time they wanted a shiny new toy? They created this big boogy man. Back then it was the "Soviets have this new Mig-25 that goes Mach 3+. We must have something to counter it". "The Soviets have this new T-80 tank, we need something to counter it". And the thing of it was the Military damn well knew that the T-80 was a dressed up T-72 and that the F-15 would beat a MIG-25 any day of the week. Yeah, the MIG-25 could go Mach 3....once before the engines had to be replaced. And the people in the defense industry as well as the DOD knew this, but they played the boogey man to Congress and the American people.
I'm sorry, but I see the same thing happening with this whole Environmental and Global Warming thing. Are there real problems out there? Should be trying not to pollute? Yes. But the tactics these people are using remind me too much of what I saw from the Defense industry.
Basically, you're saying that you've noticed that when people lie to you, the common thing is that they use words. Scientists... also use words, hence they must also be liars!
Err.. no. The techniques are similar in the sense that group 'A' is crying wolf when there is no wolf, and group 'B' is crying wolf because everyone's about to get eaten.
... and group 'A' sells wolf hunting equipment, while group 'B' has bite marks.
These predictions reminds me of an article around 1900 that claimed that if trends continue, the horse manure on the streets of chicago would be 6 ft. deep by 1930. It never happened, the automobile came along and replaced horses. And that, perhaps, is the biggest problem with these predictions. The longer the predicted , the less likely the prediction is to be correct. Things change and I don't believe we have a model yet that works.
"I read a prediction by an idiot once, hence, all people making predictions must also be idiots."
or
"Some people failed at making a prediction, so all predictions are actually impossible to make."
I don't believe a working model can be created either. Show me one of these ecological dire predictions that I remember hearing in the 1970's and 1980's that have come to pass. I remember the presentations back then saying New York would be underwater by 2010! What about global dimming back in the 1970's? Whatever happened to that?
None of these models can even begin to take into account uncertainty.
On the contrary, ALL scientific models take into account uncertainty. That's easy. The reason those old models were inaccurate was precisely because the uncertainties were so great. There was less data, it was of lower quality, and the analytical techniques just weren't there yet.
That does not mean that current predictions are just as uncertain. The work of thousands of scientists over the last few decades has been to reduce those uncertainties. They've been measuring glaciers with GPS, drilling cores in ice, collecting tree ring data from around the world, analyzing satellite imaging data, etc...
The result is still uncertain. For example, the actions of humans themselves is very hard to predict. We don't know exactly what the post-peak-oil curve will look like. We don't know if nuclear power will contribute significantly to energy use in the near future or not. Fusion might become cheap and practical. There might be some disease that wipes out 95% of people.
However, if things continue as they are going now, including the seemingly unstoppable exponential growth in population, then we're boned. This is clear to anyone who's seen the evidence and can c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You missed the worse omission:
"These predictions reminds me of an article around 1900 that claimed that if trends continue, the horse manure on the streets of chicago would be 6 ft. deep by 1930. It never happened, the automobile came along and replaced horses. And that, perhaps, is the biggest problem with these predictions."
Where does he think the automobile came from? How can he use an example of humans doing something proactive to solve the problem as an excuse to bury our heads in the sand with this on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*sigh*
1. The Arctic polar cap has been shrinking since the satellite era
Re:There's a problem with this coverage (Score:5, Informative)
2. The hard empirical fact is that atmospheric CO2 has risen from ~280 ppm to over 370ppm. But there is no link between rising CO2 and temperature rise except in the reverse sense: temperature rises and then 800-1000 years later, CO2 rises in delayed response.
*sigh* - this is what is wrong with the whole "debate" - This statement is essentially a lie based on a truth, and it takes about half a page of explanation to explain why this is, but it takes only a few seconds to repeat the lie somewhere else.
I'll attempt to use less than a page:
(1) Yes, during the climate changes caused by Milankovitch cycles, CO2-levels trail the start of temperature rise by 800 years, the reason being that CO2 is not the cause of these climate changes, the shape of the earth's orbit is the cause. However, there is a feedback loop which kicks in as temperatures rise, which causes the ocean to exhale CO2. This CO2 then causes further warming, increasing the total warming considerably beyond what would be expected if the only effect where the orbit changes themselves.
So the "trailing" of CO2 in these cases in no way disproves CO2 as a possible causal agent in climate change...
(2) On the other hand, there have been warming events in the past that cannot be explained by Milankovitch-cycles, and there the CO2-rise (possibly due to volcanic activity on a massive scale) appears to be the causal agent, and does not trail the temperature change.
So basically, if something else triggers the climate change, CO2 trails because it is a long-term feedback, if CO2 triggers the climate change, it does not trail.
Since no scientist claims that only CO2 can cause climate change, there is no problem except that "deniers" use the (1) situation to falsely claim that the (2) situation is false.
Re:There's a problem with this coverage (Score:5, Informative)
there is no link between rising CO2 and temperature rise except in the reverse sense: temperature rises and then 800-1000 years later, CO2 rises in delayed response.
Fail. New Scientist Climate Myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming [newscientist.com]
The oceans are not acidifying.
Fail. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of 0.075). [wikipedia.org]
The reported change in the average pH of 0.1 is below the measurement error of even well calibrated instruments.
Fail. The very best (very expensive!) meters have an accuracy of ±0.002 pH units. [cornell.edu] (and besides, multiple replicates and statistical analysis is used to increase accuracy and reduce individual variance - or did you seriously think that scientists only sample a single point in the sea with a single meter to determine temperature change?!)
The Maldives had a sea level fall in the 1970s followed by stasis since. Tuvalu's sea levels have remained stable during that time.
The CIA disagree with you: "Maldives: Environment - current issues: depletion of freshwater aquifers threatens water supplies; global warming and sea level rise; coral reef bleaching" [cia.gov] How sea level rise has affected the Maldives [bbc.co.uk] Tuvalu is concerned about global increases in greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on rising sea levels, which threaten the country's underground water table [cia.gov]
Re:There's a problem with this coverage (Score:4, Informative)
now the thermometers have been showing a distinct north american cooling.
So?
so nobody talks about the thermometers anymore.
Yes they do [nasa.gov].
Traceability (Score:3, Informative)
This is how it works in the specifications I deal with. You start with a set of customer requirements and they go into DOORS [ibm.com] which is a crap tool, its just better than all the alternatives. Then from that you generate system specifications which describe your system at a high level and technical specifications which pretty much how it is going to work. At any point you can point and click to trace back to the source of a particular requirement.
Now all of that has nothing to do with climate change (apart from the horrible overhead of those big binary doors files we keep copying around) but the concept is pretty straightforward.
When you write your intermediate and final documents you somehow retain traceability back to the source of the information, so that if one of your conclusions is based on crap assumptions then you can easily identify the problem.
Its not hard. Just takes some experience in fairly professional technical writing. You don't have to use the craptastic tools. I have written doors like functionality into xslt, for example.
You would think (Score:3)
You would think before trying to seize $10's of trillions of the world economy that these climate scientists would want backcast their models for as far back as we have meaningful data. You would think. Maybe the chance to become "Lords of the Earth" is a little too seductive a notion for these eggheads. Climate science is a fraud. The US should withhold funds from the IPCC immediately.
It wasn't even an error, it was INTENTIONAL! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Has anyone looked at the most recent photographs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of those glaciers have retreated more than 16 miles! If you want my opinion, it's very possible some of those glaciers could disappear by 2035.
As someone who lives in the area... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Global warming hoax (Score:4, Funny)
I would be shocked if this doesn't reach -2.
Defy the hive-mind that the majority of slashdotters are part of at your own peril my friend! Other ways to get to -2 are to suggest that you believe in God or voted for a Republican at any point in time -- and God help you if they find out that you don't know how to program, don't like Linux, and don't like Firefly....those crimes are punishable by death around here!
Re:But the Himalayan glaciers *are* still retreati (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure this won't stop some people from claiming the mistake undermines everything.
One mistake wouldn't. But the rate at which "mistakes" are piling up is becoming troubling, to say the least.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure this won't stop some people from claiming the mistake undermines everything.
One mistake wouldn't. But the rate at which "mistakes" are piling up is becoming troubling, to say the least.
Again, this isn't a error in the science-- it isn't even in the basic science report, the Working Group One report. It is an error in a report summarizing the predictions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Overstated issue by deniers (Score:4, Informative)
As far as I can tell, the typo wasn't in the research paper but in the subsequent re-phrasings by various groups. FTA:
*That* is what is so damning about the entire ordeal. The IPCC republished the figure from an article by the WWF which wrote their piece based on an article in a magazine which was based on a phone conversation with a scientist. It was a shoddy and completely unacceptable comedy of errors by the IPCC. I say this as a pro-AGW scientist myself; they really ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am pro-AGW in the same manner as I am pro-evolutionary biology, pro-heliocentric theory and pro-general/special relativity. The evidence that we have very strongly supports these scientific theories.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This graph [nasa.gov] uses the following data:
A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements.
Note that tree rings are not mentioned [nasa.gov].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
NH = "Northern Hemisphere"
"Average NH temperatures fell 0.6-0.8dC 1998-2007, and will fall more sharply in 2008-2009."
That's an old deniers' trick. 1998 was an out-lier, an exceptionally warm year. So if you use a 5-year average, then it'll appear that temperature actually fell during 2000's. Of course, 2000-s is the hottest decade and 2009 is the tied for the position of the warmest year on records ( http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/23/nasa-makes-it-official-2000s-were-the-hottest-decade-on-record-2009- [climateprogress.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like this:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/23/nasa-makes-it-official-2000s-were-the-hottest-decade-on-record-2009-tied-for-second-warmest-year [climateprogress.org]
Completely in agreement with climate models.
Mod parent up (Score:3, Insightful)
If you can sort of wade through the homophobia and hatred of former American colonies, he's right: you will soon be charged the full price for your lifestyle. You're going to live in a smaller dwelling and I doubt everyone will be driving a 6 liter V8. Red meat will be very expensive because it uses an enormous amount of water and staple crops to generate, which will really get expensive once it's not legal to pollute local waterways to the point where they create thousands of square miles of deadzones in t