CST: Sea Rise Claim Withdrawn Plus Others

Collapsing Science Today: Yet again, a supposed peer reviewed report in a major journal, and used by the UN IPCC, has issues. Shocking!

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results“. The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: “It’s one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science.” He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study’s conclusion.

It would probably be irresponsible and rude to say that the study was probably looking to strengthen the UN IPCC’s hysterical conclusions, wouldn’t it? That they wanted a certain outcome? Especially since the sea, at this time, is not rising. That is not to say that, in the past, and in the future, it won’t. It probably will. It has been slowly rising over the past 7,000 years, after most of the melt from the end of the last ice age 18,000 years ago, when it rose dramatically for 11,000 years. Over the last 7k, it has been up and down.

But, hey, good news! The EPA considered classifying water vapor a “pollutant.” Could water vapor be the next AGW demon?

Finally, here comes the next bubble-carbon trading

According to Mr Schapiro, carbon trading is now the fastest growing commodities market on earth. Since Kyoto signatories bought in to the cap and trade concept in 2005, there have been more than $300bn carbon transactions, prompting several investment banks, including Goldman Sachs and Barclays, to set up their own carbon trading desks. But that’s just the start. If President Obama and his supporters can institute a cap-and-trade system in the United States – and that’s a big if for this increasingly marooned presidency – demand could explode into a $2 to $3 trillion market.

And here’s the great thing about it. Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will eventually involve delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon market is based on lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no-one. Since the market revolves around creating carbon credits, or finding carbon reduction projects whose benefits can then be sold to those with a surplus of emissions, it is entirely intangible.

‘Nuff said.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “CST: Sea Rise Claim Withdrawn Plus Others”

  1. Reasic says:

    Wow. Where to start?

    First of all, nice selective quoting. Usually, if you’re going to skip a couple of paragraphs, you should put some sort of ellipsis in there somewhere. The portion you skipped over:

    Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

    Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

    Yeah, they’re not sure whether it means they over- or undershot the target. I bet someone does, though:


    Very soon after this study was published, the scientists at RealClimate had already found the calculation error, and criticized the study for being too LOW! Most other updated studies on the subject estimated sea level rise that was double was what in the latest IPCC report. However, this report was in line with the AR4. The error you mentioned caused their estimate of 20th century rise to be half of what it should’ve been. I wonder what this would do to their estimate of 21st century sea level rise?

    I’m also curious about your claim that this study was “used by the IPCC”, as it was published two full years after the 2007 IPCC AR4 report.

    Oh, and your reference to Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner’s interview was good for a laugh. Some IPCC scientist makes a claim, and you cry foul, asking for his paper. Where’s the SCIENCE?!?! Then, you see an interview with an old, contrarian scientist, and you state his opinions as fact. Way to be consistent, Teach! 😛

    Oh, and as to whether sea level is rising?


    Looks upward to me. And the potential problem is the blip at the end. In the last 100 years or so, sea level rise has continued to increase, and will only continue to do so, due to continued thermal expansion and glacier melt.

  2. Otter says:

    ‘Many scientists who either believe in AGW or are enamored of the grant money it brings them, criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative.’

    There, fixed it for you.

  3. Reasic says:

    What exactly did you “fix”?

Bad Behavior has blocked 13234 access attempts in the last 7 days.