New Climate Model from NASA scientists

[pjclarke]

Same Old, Same Old

Bounoua stressed that while the model's results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected. In fact, the present work is an example of how, over time, scientists will create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate.

"This feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming," Bounoua said.

That couldn't possibly be a quote from the NASA Press Release describing the model study, could it? That would mean that IT news and gossip site The Register was indulging in some misrepresentation and spin of a climate science story. This is something that just never happens. (read the Editor's Note).

[EternalOptimist]

That couldn't possibly be a quote from the NASA Press Release describing the model study, could it? That would mean that IT news and gossip site The Register was indulging in some misrepresentation and spin of a climate science story. This is something that just never happens. (read the Editor's Note).

thats good that pj. I am actually impressed that the editor was able to add such a clear correction, apology and in such big typeface.
I wonder if you could direct me to an equivilent, where a pro-cagw publication has made a similar major correction and apology ?

[BlasterBates]

That couldn't possibly be a quote from the NASA Press Release describing the model study, could it? That would mean that IT news and gossip site The Register was indulging in some misrepresentation and spin of a climate science story. This is something that just never happens. (read the Editor's Note).

...yeah you're right the global warming continues unabated, be glad when this freak cold snap is over.

[EternalOptimist]

They'll still be banging on about AGW when the glaciers are rolling across Africa.

i'd settle for some GW right now, whether its A or not

[BlasterBates]

That couldn't possibly be a quote from the NASA Press Release describing the model study, could it? That would mean that IT news and gossip site The Register was indulging in some misrepresentation and spin of a climate science story. This is something that just never happens. (read the Editor's Note).

What does the NASA press release say:

The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Without the negative feedback included, the model found a warming of 1.94 degrees C globally when carbon dioxide was doubled.

So where was the misrepresentation? (you mean they should have quoted the other models with their ridiculous predictions).

What's causing this:

Global tropical cyclone activity still in the tank | Watts Up With That?

Perhaps you would like to explain to us why this is the case, during the hottest year on record.

This isn't what the climate scientists predicted.

I have a theory that climate scientists are full of sh*t.

[DodgyAgent]

Per-leeze. Always amusing when the 'sceptics' fail to show even basic scepticism. Take some comfort, your chances of becoming a 'carbon billionaire' are about the same as Nobel Peace Laureate Al Gore's [who donates all profits from his prizes, books and movies to an educational charity, actually]. The Telegraph headline is based on this ....



Yeah - and Barack Obama's trip to India cost $200 million a day.

Look - when a media outlet bases a headline on pure hearsay (polite word) is it not time to engage some of that much-vaunted 'scepticism'?

Here are two reasons to doubt the Telegraph group's ability to convey the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the business interests of major climate change players.

1. On December 20th, the Sunday Telegraph carried a long and prominent feature "Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri." It's since been pulled.

The subtitle alleged that Pachauri has been “making a fortune from his links with ‘carbon trading’ companies”. The article maintained that the money made by Pachauri while working for other organisations “must run into millions of dollars”.

It described his outside interests as “highly lucrative commercial jobs”. It proposed that these payments caused a “conflict of interest” with his IPCC role. It also complained that we don’t know “how much we all pay him” as chairman of the IPCC.

Sadly none of it was true, natch and after a protracted complaints process involving libel lawyers and an audit of Pachauri's financial interests the Telegraph published an apology and retraction.

2. On 12th December the Telegraph published a story claiming that the closure of a steelworks in Redcar by the Tata group was motivated by a prospective £1.2 billion profit from carbon credits

Balony again. Here's the apology

Scepticism is a wonderful thing. Uncritically parrotting a headline is the opposite.

And what makes you such a paragon of virtue?

[sunnysan]

Proof

I took a rather less empirical approach to the AGW debate, I was skeptical until I heard this.

Global warming is too serious for the world any longer to ignore its danger or split into opposing factions on it.

TONY BLAIR, speech, Sept. 27, 2005

Then I knew it was bullsh 1 t ....

[pjclarke]

So where was the misrepresentation?

Where to start? In presenting the model used in the study as a formal NASA projection of future temperatures. The Reg assumed that the model used in the study was a global climate model initialised to real world conditions. It wasn't, it was just a control model used for a baseline. It is the function of science journalism to digest and present scientific research accurately for a lay audience. It is abundantly clear that the Register 'journalist', Lewis Page has not actually read the paper, and is basing his coverage on a misunderstanding of the NASA press release.

See here for a thorough discrediting.

This is par for the course for The Register, btw. It has improved since they dispensed with the services of the absurd Steve Goddard, but as this BS shows, it is not a reliable source.

Perhaps you would like to explain to us why this is the case, during the hottest year on record.

Ah, WattsUpWithThat - the site that 'proved' Arctic ice was not declining (by measuring from a peak to a trough of the cycle), that told us CO2 would precipitate out in extreme cold (unable to read a simple phase diagram, then) and that the high temperatures on Venus are not due to the Greenhouse effect (not even wrong). Not a site I waste much time on ....

This isn't what the climate scientists predicted.

Source? Warmer oceans will tend to make tropical storms more intense, however the changes in vertical wind shear may mean that the right conditions for cyclogenesis occur less frequently, that is fewer storms are able to form. Which effect will predominate is actually a subject of some debate . The relevant IPCC bit is

Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones.

Also, the TC data shows high interannual variability, and uncertainties in the historical data are high so it's folly to try and draw conclusions from a single year or even a few years. For a more rigourous treatment than one can expect from Mr Watts, try Kerry Emmanuel's website or Chris Mooney's book 'Storm Wars'.

cheers,

[EternalOptimist]

you still havn't pointed me to a similar rag that has made an equivilent editorial correction

[pjclarke]

you still havn't pointed me to a similar rag that has made an equivilent editorial correction

I think the onus is on you to supply an example of uncorrected and erroneous alarmism. Arguably the worst climate scientific error in recent times was the projection of Himalayan Glacier meltdown in the IPCC Working Group II report, and their apology is here.

No media outlet seemed to feel the need to issue an apology on that occasion, perhaps because the proper section on the physical science of the glaciers (WGI) was accurate, perhaps because the claim was not made in any of the key summaries and was not reported at the time it was published. This may explain why it went unremarked for two years.

'AmazonGate', of course, was an embarrassment for the Sunday Times, not the IPCC.