Re: [asa] Subglacial Water System Moving Faster Than Previously Thought

A quick perusal of the actual report, which is freely available on
line, shows the following discrepancies with the argument Janice has
quoted

It's page 7 of 18, table SMP-1 and it shows the following data points
1.6, 0.77, 0.21, 0.21 which add up to 2.79 compared to 2.8 so where is
the math error?

Anyone can make a mistake I guess, although this one seems extremely
sloppy. Have these numbers been 'cooked'? Janice provides no
supporting evidence thus the accusation remains unsupported by logic,
reason and data.

I figured out that Janice confused the WG1 copy with the one which was
approved by the ICPP.

The draft AR4 reports mention the correct numbers already, so a bit
more research would have trivially resolved these apparent conflicts.
Nothing sinister really. Unfortunate that it has led some to make such
strong accusations. I wonder if these people will admit their errors
now that the situation seems resolved.

<quote> from AR4 draft chapter 5
The average thermal expansion contribution to sea-level rise for the
last 50 years is is 0.4 ± 0.1 mm yr–1, with significant decadal
variations. For 1993 to 2003, the estimate is 1.6 ± 0.6 mm yr–1, but
it is unclear whether the increase indicates an accelerated rise or
it is associated with decadal or longer variability of the
ocean-atmosphere system.
 </quote>

Hope this helps

On 2/18/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> @ :)
>
> IPCC'S PHONY ARITHMETIC
>
> Because the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is like Holy Scripture,
> and the researchers now have 3 months to make the full report consistent, it
> is clear that they will have to change some rules of mathematics. Open the
> SPM, go to the page 5 of 21 and you will find Table SPM-0 there. The fifth
> line claims to be the sum of the previous four contributions to the sea
> level rise. However, for example in the 1993-2003 column, it would require
> 0.16+0.077+0.21+0.21 to be equal to 0.28 instead of 0.657. Note that with
> the value 0.657, the predicted value would differ from the observed value by
> more than five observed sigmas.
>
> Also, the sum of four terms seems to be 5-10 times more accurate than the
> error of the Antarctic contribution. What a miraculous way of adding things.
> An average climate scientist would fix these problems simply by adding some
> random zeros to the Greenland or Antarctic contribution (see below) to
> obtain agreement. However, you can't mess up with the summary, a Holy
> Scripture. So what must happen according to their rules is that the full
> report will prove that 0.16+0.077+0.21+0.21 = 0.28. I am sure that they will
> find some climate scientists if not mathematicians who will defend the
> consensus that this sum is different than your calculator would expect. I
> hope that many people will be looking forward to this new breakthrough in
> mathematics proving that the climate change is more catastrophic and the
> underlying science is more solid than anyone has ever anticipated.
>
> Error first documented by Sean Davis (sum) and Stuart Staniford (error
> margin), readers of RealClimate, but detected independently also by others.
> These erroneous sums cannot be passed off as a transcribing error. The
> same numbers were in the draft distributed to governments in 2006. The
> error is a failure of the 2500 IPCC reviewers to notice that four numbers do
> not add up correctly.
>
> Correct answer? Simply divide both Greenland and Antarctic numbers by 10
> and the sums come out as shown in the Table. Of course, this is not the
> whole story. One suspects that these numbers – all of them estimates – have
> been "cooked" to get agreement with observed values. For example, in past
> IPCC reports the Antarctic values were negative, leading to a lowering of
> sea level. The error bars are so large that anything is still possible.
>
> ~ Janice

The paper is interesting but provides most of the answers to Janice's
'questions' namely that there are many unknowns and large
variabilities with a small signal.

<quote>"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of
Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a
lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to
demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the
northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most
rapidly warming parts of the Earth."</quote>

<quote>
   "The best we can say right now is that the climate models are
somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50
years from continental Antarctica. "We're looking for a small signal
that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it
at the moment," he said.</quote>

So in the Antarctic the global warming signal is harder to find. Of
course, if precipitation has remained the same, then the conclusion
that the antarctic will contribute -0.1 m/century to the sea level
means that sea levels will rise even more than ICPP has predicted.

On 2/18/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> "Hope this helps" ~ Pim 2/18/06
>
> @ I hope this helps you too. :)
>
> ANTARCTIC TEMPERATURES DISAGREE WITH CLIMATE MODEL PREDICTIONS Source:
> Ohio State University
> Released: Tue 13-Feb-2007, 18:00 ET
> Embargo expired: Thu 15-Feb-2007, 14:00 ET
> http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/527313/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Feb 18 15:29:08 2007