Rising sea levels? Hmmm

[Dr Mordrid]

One wonders at what point they'll just withdraw the entire 2007 report given how many portions of it are now under question?

Link...

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.
>
>

[Elie]

WOW 82cm's is enough to cause permanent flooding in several parts of this world!!

These people should look for a new job, seriously.

[Brian Ellis]

One wonders at what point they'll just withdraw the entire 2007 report given how many portions of it are now under question?

Link...

I don't understand why you make a fuss. The 2007 estimates calculated according to the 2005 AOGCMs models have the range of 0.18 to 0.59 cm, according to 6 scenarios. (table SPM-3 of the WG! SPMS.. This assumes NO significant rise from Greenland ice cap melting. or other dynamical ice flows. Are the IPCC not permitted, in your light. to improve their models, as more science becomes available? If so, then you are blind in one eye and cannot see with the the other. Pittock, last year, had already made some corrections, so please get with it and get some of your facts straight, instead of decrying all the good work being done to try and improve what are not forecasts but best-available predictions which will continue to be improved in time.

If you take the Guardian as your criterion for science, be advised that this is has now become the worst kind of tabloid rag, akin almost to the National Enquirer.

[Dr Mordrid]

FYI some of the best investigative journalism in the US the last decade or so has been done by the National Enquirer. They've downright embarrassed a lot of the so-called icons of print journalism several times, breaking stories the big broadsheets never even investigated. In fact, this year it's up for, and very well could win, 2 Pulitzer Prize's: Investigative Reporting and National News Reporting.

Whodathunkit?

As for IPCC - its credibility here, which has never been very high, is now neck deep in quicksand. Especially after the revelations of climategate, the Indian glaciers, this and other fiascoes. Papers here, mainstream ones, are openly discussing if its Chairman needs to go (yes) or if a successor, much better peer-reviewed (ex: no papers based on mountaineering or other magazine articles), non-UN agency is needed.

They have a point IMO. The way things have been run there is almost funny, if it weren't so sad.

[Brian Ellis]

FYI some of the best investigative journalism in the US the last decade or so has been done by the National Enquirer. They've downright embarrassed a lot of the so-called icons of print journalism several times, breaking stories the big broadsheets never even investigated. In fact, this year it's up for, and very well could win, 2 Pulitzer Prize's: Investigative Reporting and National News Reporting.

Whodathunkit?

So what? They are only media trying to make money, selling largely half-truths and often downright lies.

As for IPCC - its credibility here, which has never been very high, is now neck deep in quicksand. Especially after the revelations of climategate, the Indian glaciers, this and other fiascoes. Papers here, mainstream ones, are openly discussing if its Chairman needs to go (yes) or if a successor, much better peer-reviewed (ex: no papers based on mountaineering or other magazine articles), non-UN agency is needed.

They have a point IMO. The way things have been run there is almost funny, if it weren't so sad.

As you know damned well "Climategate" was a storm in a teacup of absolutely no consequence, because not one iota of raw data was lost to the world community and is still as valid as ever. Apparently, you are of the rigid opinion that scientists, who are only human, are never allowed to be mistaken or make an error, while you are always 100% right, even though you have no first hand knowledge of the subject, like the 1000-odd expert scientists, who DO peer-review every word (and also make errors). If you are so certain of your scientific opinion, you would be welcome to join the IPCC and make your positive contribution; why don't you?

Where I will agree with you is that there should be a one or two year rotating presidency amongst a "cabinet" of the notables in atmospheric science. There is no room for a cult of the personality of an individual. I see no reason why the IPCC should not be run under the auspices of the UNEP, combined with the WMO, as at present. Better that than Greenpeace or suchlike.

[cjolley]

...Apparently, you are of the rigid opinion that scientists, who are only human, are never allowed to be mistaken or make an error, while you are always 100% right, even though you have no first hand knowledge of the subject...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which "people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it".[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than in actuality; by contrast the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to a perverse result where less competent people will rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. "Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."[1]
“ The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ”

— Bertrand Russell[2]
...