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.

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.

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.

A great article from 2008 by a scientist showing that, assuming global warming is true, it would still take at least 3000 years for the sea levels to rise to a dangerous height, not 100:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/will_the_ice_caps_melt.html

(warning: some heavy math for the non-scientifically inclined, like me!)

>>>>>

"Modern science is a bullshit factory. Amount of papers, information is amazing BUT most of it is repeating itself BS. Why? Cause, scientists must publish to survive, keep his job, get funded in the future. Sure, one can publish a lot by doing superb cutting edge research every other week. But science is not a manufacturing plant. So, folks have chosen simpler ways to boost their paper counts. #1 the trick is to publish as many papers as one can based on a single modest result, or NO significant results whatsoever. Fraud, comes the second. "Massaging/forging data" sounds disgusting? Well, it doesn't if you want to keep your paycheck coming...."

<<<<<

>>> Where is this from? ...the site of the missing scientist out of Ottawa, NRC Canadian Neutron Beam Centre - [Dr.] Lachlan Cranswick.

http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/nanoshite/index.html and Sudden disappearance of Deep River scientist mystifies colleagues

Have been researching Lachlan's site all night. Interesting. Different science but same MO - politics, science and money." <<<

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Hello "Fight_Truth_Decay".

It's even worse at university because one has to adhere strictly to all the worldviews held by those who hold the GRANT MONEY - grant dollars have controlled university research departments in the USA for many many many decades. It's all about the money, follow the money; but if you choose not to play by the game rules, or at least appear to be playing in Their Big Money Casino, you'll never be published again. Sure, one or two 'wild' cards every once in a while, now & again, is fine, but scientists who are seriously philosophically inclined can't abide this forever. The real power status quo must be maintained at all times. Do you believe that Lachlan Cranswick has perhaps gone "off grid" - left of his own accord & inclination, entirely disinclined to play Their Game, anymore?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.