Washington Post Using IPCC Errors As A Baseline For Propaganda

The 2007 IPCC report was full of mistakes, like the claim that Himalayan Glaciers would be gone by 2035. Another error appears to have been a graph which indicated 2mm/ sea level rise per year

a “best estimate” by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, which projected that by today, the rise would be 2 mm (0.078 inches) per year.

AFP: Seas rising 60% faster than UN forecast: study

If the IPCC did say that, it was an error. The sea level graphs which their numbers are based on showed more than 3.1 mm/year prior to 2007, and a sharp slow down since 2007.

ScreenHunter_320 Dec. 02 10.44

MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_NoAdjust.png (500×332)

Based on this nonsense, the Washington Post reports :

a group of climate researchers released calculations that indicate the world’s oceans are rising 60 percent faster than the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change anticipated five years ago

sea levels appear to be on track to rise by several feet over the next century, with every inch putting more Americans at risk. Sea-level researchers Robert Kopp and Benjamin Strauss estimate that a five-foot rise would produce Sandy-like floods in New York every 15 years, on average.

Holding back the sea – The Washington Post

An honest statement would be that the train has fallen off the one foot per century track, and that since 2007 sea level is rising 50% slower. The Washington Post is engaging in classic Soviet journalism.

We finished second, and the other team finished next to last

h/t to Marc Morano

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Washington Post Using IPCC Errors As A Baseline For Propaganda

  1. Sundance says:

    Bill McKitten is considered important as Gandhi or Martin Luther King.

    “Students should attend this event not only to come to grips with our situation, but also recognize that there are millions of people around the world who are actively engage in trying to prevent irreversible catastrophic climate destabilization,” Miller said.

    Miller sees McKibben to be an important figure in the fight against global warming, and has described him as the “Gandhi” or “Martin Luther King” of the climate change movement. He hopes students leave the event realizing the severity of this problem while also being motivated by those, such as McKibben, who have been very involved in the fight against global warming.

    http://www.creightonian.com/?p=5486

  2. Assuming this alarming report by our friends Rahmstorf & Foster again:

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/pdf/1748-9326_7_4_044035.pdf

    The claim is:

    “The satellite-based linear trend 1993–2011 is 3:2 0:5 mm yr, which is 60% faster than the best IPCC estimate of 2.0 mm yr for the same interval (blue lines).”

    IPCC predicts for scenario A2 a best estimate of 3.4C for, which has a sea level rise of 0.23 – 0.51. Which is expected average sea level rise of .34.

    So the “60% faster” claim appears ogus. Unfortunately Rahmstorf & Foster don’t cite where they are getting their numbers from other than stating:

    “Here, the sea-level projections provided in figure 5 of the summary for policy makers of the
    third assessment and in table SPM.3 of the fourth assessment are shown…”

    But if we look at that table, all the low estimates are ball park on 2.0mm. So the 2.0 mm yr estimate is not the best estimate but the *minimum* estimate.

    I suppose “60% faster than the lowest estimate” doesn’t have the same ring to it. ;-)

    The problem is Rahmstorf & Foster do a little fiddle here, a little fiddle somewhere else, and eventually they have enormously bloated their results by the end of the process. And of course, nobody questions these basic claims at the journal…

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

  3. hannuko says:

    I found this:

    “Global sea level has been rising at a rate of about 1.7 to 1.8 mm/yr over the last century, with an increased rate of about 3 mm/yr during the last decade (Church et al., 2004; Holgate and Woodworth, 2004; Church and White, 2006; Bindoff et al., 2007, Section 5.5).” –IPCC AR4, p.92

    The only place where “2 mm/yr” (or “2.0 mm/yr”) is even mentioned is in page 690:

    “Analysis of observational data showed a global mean temperature increase of around 0.6°C during the 20th century, while mean sea level rose by about 2 mm/yr, although sea-level trends are complicated by local tectonics and El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events.”

    Saying that IPCC expected rise of only 2 mm/yr isn’t exactly true, is it?

    They are drumming up a hysteria based purely on easily disproven lies. They might get some advantage in the short term, but in the long term they destroy their credibility even more than they already have.

    • They have no credibility left… except among True Believers and vested interests. Hence there is no downside to making more and more shrill claims, or ever sillier assertions (“extreme weather”, etc).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s