[QUOTE]
THE HAGUE, Netherlands – A leading Dutch environmental agency, taking the blame for one of the glaring errors that undermined the credibility of a seminal U.N. report on climate change, said Monday it has discovered more small mistakes and urged the panel to be more careful.
But the review by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency claimed that none of the errors effected the fundamental conclusion by U.N. panel of scientists: that global warming caused by humans already is happening and is threatening the lives and well-being of millions of people.
Mistakes discovered in the 3,000-page report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year fed into an atmosphere of skepticism over the reliability of climate scientists who have been warning for many years that human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases could have catastrophic consequences, including rising sea levels, drought and the extinction of nearly one-third of the Earth's species.
The errors put scientists on the defensive in the months before a major summit on climate change in Copenhagen in December, which met with only limited success on agreeing how to limit carbon emissions and contain the worst effects of global warming.
The underlying IPCC conclusions remain valid, said Maarten Hajer, the Dutch agency's director. The IPCC report is not a house of cards that collapses with one error, but is more like a puzzle with many pieces that need to fit together. "So the errors do not affect the whole construction," he said at a news conference.
But he said the boiled-down version of the full IPCC report, a synthesis meant as a guideline for policymakers, included conclusions drawn from "expert judgments" that were not always clearly sourced or transparent.
With some conclusions, "we can't say it's plainly wrong. We don't know," and can't tell from the supporting text, Hajer said. The IPCC should "be careful making generalizations."
The IPCC, in a statement from its Geneva headquarters, welcomed the agency's findings, which it said confirmed the IPCC's conclusion that "continued climate change will pose serious challenges to human well-being and sustainable development."
It said it will "pay close attention" to the agency's recommendations to tighten up review procedures.
The Dutch agency accepted responsibility for one mistake by the IPCC when it reported in 2005 that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level, when only 26 percent is. The report should have said 55 percent is prone to flooding, including river flooding.
The mistake happened when a long report was compressed into a short one, and two figures were meshed into one. "Something was lost, and it wasn't spotted," said Hajer.
"The incorrect wording in the IPCC report does not affect the message of the conclusion," that the Netherlands is highly susceptible to sea level rise, the agency's report said. "The lesson to be learned for an assessment agency such as ours is that quality control is needed at the primary level."
The second previously reported error claimed the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, which the Dutch agency partly traced to a report on the likely shrinking of glaciers by the year 2350.
The review, which lasted five months, also found several other errors in the IPCC report on regional impacts of climate change — one of four separate IPCC reports in 2007 — although it said they were inconsequential.
The original report said global warming will put 75 million to 250 million Africans at risk of severe water shortages in the next 10 years, but a recalculation showed that range should be 90 million to 220 million, the agency said.
Another error it found involved the effect of wind turbulence on anchovy fisheries on Africa's west coast.
The Dutch agency said it examined 32 conclusions in the summary for policy makers on the impact of climate change in eight regions.
"Our findings do not contradict the main conclusions of the IPCC," the report said. "There is ample observational evidence of natural systems being influenced by climate change ... (that) pose substantial risks to most parts of the world."
It said future IPCC reports should have a more robust review process and should look more closely at where information comes from. It also recommended more investment in monitoring global warming in developing countries.
[/QUOTE]
Source: [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100705/ap_on_bi_ge/climate[/url]
In other news the world sales of beans and cabbages are severely affected.
Oh no, there's a mistake or two, and a few typographical errors in a three thousand page long document. This obviously means that now people on Facepunch can be justified in coming along and completely ignoring the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.
Anyway, this is a very good thing, even these minor errors and typographical mistakes are important to fix, in order to assure that we have a correct view of what is happening, and what will probably happen in the future.
No matter what the report said we should still get rid of fossil fuels. They'll eventually run out some day.
Minor as in entire country's flooding, it's what you call minor.
A few flipped numbers and errors/omissions does not unravel a theory. Everyone makes errors now and then, the only reason this is news is because it's a manufactroversy.
[QUOTE=Baldr;23134568]Minor as in entire country's flooding, it's what you call minor.[/QUOTE]
Because they put the wrong figure in the wrong place, and also worded it incorrectly.
That actually isn't what they were saying with it, anyway.
"2005 that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level, when only 26 percent is. The report should have said 55 percent is prone to flooding, including river flooding."
In before "Small mistakes? This must mean all of global warming is an NWO conspiracy!"
Never knew that a centuries worth of rising temps mattered to five billions years of climate cycling.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23135326]Never knew that a centuries worth of rising temps mattered to five billions years of climate cycling.[/QUOTE]
This is why you're not a climatologist or statistician, or even working in a field related to it.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23135326]Never knew that a centuries worth of rising temps mattered to five billions years of climate cycling.[/QUOTE]
We don't live our lives in the scope of five billion years so yeah, it matters
But the review by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency claimed that none of the errors effected the fundamental conclusion by U.N. panel of scientists: that global warming caused by humans already is happening and is threatening the lives and well-being of millions of people.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23135481]This is why you're not a climatologist or statistician, or even working in a field related to it.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/images/2007/07/11/al_gore_smug.jpg[/IMG]
Keep up the good work
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23135481]This is why you're not a climatologist or statistician, or even working in a field related to it.[/QUOTE]
Yep, 0.00000002 percent of climatic history is a lot. But tell me, where are the supposed thousand of scientists that conclude global warming is man made?
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23134507]Oh no, there's a mistake or two, and a few typographical errors in a three thousand page long document. This obviously means that now people on Facepunch can be justified in coming along and completely ignoring the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.[/QUOTE]
This is the last in a long list of 'mistakes'. Consensus, by the way means nothing given the political and social orientation of the people who hold the majority in the consensus.
[QUOTE]Anyway, this is a very good thing, even these minor errors and typographical mistakes are important to fix, in order to assure that we have a correct view of what is happening, and what will probably happen in the future.[/QUOTE]
Another great way of assuring we have the correct view is to lock people who hold a view that opposes the consensus out of the peer review system, wouldn't you agree? I mean AGW is proven so ya know it doesn't matter about the hundreds of thousands of pages written by scientists opposing the consensus.
[QUOTE]No matter what the report said we should still get rid of fossil fuels. They'll eventually run out some day.[/QUOTE]
Quite. The days of fusion and solar energy are coming. Hydrogen engines will replace petrol and diesel engines without a shadow of a doubt.
[QUOTE]A few flipped numbers and errors/omissions does not unravel a theory. Everyone makes errors now and then, the only reason this is news is because it's a manufactroversy.[/QUOTE]
But ignored evidence blasting the theory out of the water doesn't get news?
[QUOTE]This is why you're not a climatologist or statistician, or even working in a field related to it.[/QUOTE]
Well don't you have a dogmatic view about AGW.
[QUOTE=North;23135678]This is the last in a long list of 'mistakes'. Consensus, by the way means nothing given the political and social orientation of the people who hold the majority in the consensus.
Another great way of assuring we have the correct view is to lock people who hold a view that opposes the consensus out of the peer review system, wouldn't you agree? I mean AGW is proven so ya know it doesn't matter about the hundreds of thousands of pages written by scientists opposing the consensus.
Quite. The days of fusion and solar energy are coming. Hydrogen engines will replace petrol and diesel engines without a shadow of a doubt.
But ignored evidence[B] blasting the theory out of the water[/B] doesn't get news?[/QUOTE]
Please, do show. Should be funny. Bonus points if you do it without mentioning "Climategate"
North, I don't know if you're truly new or just an alt of someone, but around here we like to cite our claims of "blasting the theory out of the water".
[IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/co2-vs-temp.jpg[/IMG]
Yep, there was big industry 400,000 years ago....
Try reading Roy Spencer's 'The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists'.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23135590]Yep, 0.00000002 percent of climatic history is a lot. But tell me, where are the supposed thousand of scientists that conclude global warming is man made?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_concurring_organizations[/url]
Every. Single. Major. Scientific. Organisation.
"With the release of the revised statement[95] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."
[editline]06:23PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=North;23135678]This is the last in a long list of 'mistakes'. Consensus, by the way means nothing given the political and social orientation of the people who hold the majority in the consensus.
Another great way of assuring we have the correct view is to lock people who hold a view that opposes the consensus out of the peer review system, wouldn't you agree? I mean AGW is proven so ya know it doesn't matter about the hundreds of thousands of pages written by scientists opposing the consensus.
Quite. The days of fusion and solar energy are coming. Hydrogen engines will replace petrol and diesel engines without a shadow of a doubt.
But ignored evidence blasting the theory out of the water doesn't get news?
Well don't you have a dogmatic view about AGW.[/QUOTE]
What evidence do you have? Show me it, cite it properly, and I'll even believe you. If you have the evidence, I will bend to it.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23135760][IMG_thumb]http://filesmelt.com/dl/co2-vs-temp.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
Yep, there was big industry 400,000 years ago....[/QUOTE]
I blamed the magicians and witches.
[QUOTE=North;23135814]Try reading Roy Spencer's 'The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists'.[/QUOTE]
That's not citing figures, that's telling me to read a book (not even peer-reviewed) published (doesn't mean it's trustworthy) by one guy.
Cite me actual evidence, not tell me to buy a book by some guy.
Hell, even quote some passages from the book, I'll take that, too.
[editline]06:30PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23135760][IMG_thumb]http://filesmelt.com/dl/co2-vs-temp.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
Yep, there was big industry 400,000 years ago....[/QUOTE]
Good work showing a graph that doesn't even go until today, and that is just raw data with no interpretations, taken from a website of an organization that actually supports the exact opposite of what you're trying to say.
The various extremes of temperature increases we've seen over the last century including various periods where the trend was leaning to the extremely cold side of the spectrum such as Global Cooling. We've also seen periods which lean to the warmer side of the spectrum.
The theory of AGW is: Greenhouse gasses such as CO2, Methane, etc. increase leading to what amounts to in effect a rise in temperature. Well, temperatures have been decreasing since 98 and greenhouse gas emissions have only increased.
Durp anyone?
The Holocene Climatic Optimum. Read into it, if you can do that.
Milankovitch cycles. Heard of them?
Oh, and the fact a large proportion of scientists think the Hockey Stick Graph is bullshit. The proxies he obtained his data from, more importantly the accuracy of them, is highly debatable.
Oh, and I'll drop you some of the most damning quotes.
[QUOTE=North;23136000]The various extremes of temperature increases we've seen over the last century including various periods where the trend was leaning to the extremely cold side of the spectrum such as Global Cooling. We've also seen periods which lean to the warmer side of the spectrum.
The theory of AGW is: Greenhouse gasses such as CO2, Methane, etc. increase leading to what amounts to in effect a rise in temperature. Well, temperatures have been decreasing since 98 and greenhouse gas emissions have only increased.
Durp anyone?
The Holocene Climatic Optimum. Read into it, if you can do that.
Milankovitch cycles. Heard of them?[/QUOTE]
Again, citations. Don't just tell us to "read this" or "temps have been going down", point us to a source that says temps have been going down.
[QUOTE]Oh, and I'll drop you some of the most damning quotes.[/QUOTE]
Please, resort to quote mining
Global warming is happening. There's thousands of scientific studies AND scientists who assert this, until it has become a globally accepted fact. Do we really need to argue this?
[QUOTE=North;23136000]The various extremes of temperature increases we've seen over the last century including various periods where the trend was leaning to the extremely cold side of the spectrum such as Global Cooling. We've also seen periods which lean to the warmer side of the spectrum.
The theory of AGW is: Greenhouse gasses such as CO2, Methane, etc. increase leading to what amounts to in effect a rise in temperature. Well, temperatures have been decreasing since 98 and greenhouse gas emissions have only increased.
Durp anyone?
The Holocene Climatic Optimum. Read into it, if you can do that.
Milankovitch cycles. Heard of them?[/QUOTE]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Orbital_variation.svg/500px-Orbital_variation.svg.png[/img]
Oops, we're on the downswing of a Milankovitch cycle. Your point now directly contradicts your claims, and makes our forcing of the climate even stronger than what some here might have though, not knowing about these.
Thanks for supporting my argument.
[QUOTE=Boomersocks;23134539]No matter what the report said we should still get rid of fossil fuels. They'll eventually run out some day.[/QUOTE]
They're running right now. Running into the ocean.
[QUOTE=North;23136000]
Oh, and the fact a large proportion of scientists think the Hockey Stick Graph is bullshit. The proxies he obtained his data from, more importantly the accuracy of them, is highly debatable.
Oh, and I'll drop you some of the most damning quotes.[/QUOTE]
Except for the fact that every single reputable scientific organization in the world supports the findings of the IPCC. I don't care if some people think one graph is not correct. This doesn't mean they think the whole theory is bullshit, you know.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23135834][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_concurring_organizations[/URL]
Every. Single. Major. Scientific. Organisation.
"With the release of the revised statement[95] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."
[/QUOTE]
You actually cited wikipedia, get me a real source. Not some publically editable document.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23135915]
Good work showing a graph that doesn't even go until today, and that is just raw data with no interpretations, taken from a website of an organization that actually supports the exact opposite of what you're trying to say.[/QUOTE]
As if a mere sixty years makes a difference. Stop listening to the propaganda.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23136124]You actually cited wikipedia, get me a real source. Not some publically editable document.[/QUOTE]
They have citations linking to every statement by the organizations. It's one of the more well-maintained pages.
[url]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html[/url]
Wikipedia is as reliable as the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.