The IPCC Is Underwater

It appears that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has some seriously wrong figures for the Netherlands.

A United Nations report wrongly claimed that more than half of the Netherlands is currently below sea level.

In fact, just 20 percent of the country consists of polders that are pumped dry, and which are at risk of flooding if global warming causes rising sea levels. Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer has ordered a thorough investigation into the quality of the climate reports which she uses to base her policies on.

Climate-sceptic MPs were quick to react. Conservative MP Helma Neppérus and Richard de Mos from the right-wing Freedom Party want the minister to explain to parliament how these figures were used to decide on national climate policy. "This may invalidate all claims that the last decades were the hottest ever," Mr De Mos said.

The incorrect figures which date back to 2007 were revealed on Wednesday by the weekly Vrij Nederland. The Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency told reporters that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) added together two figures supplied by the agency: the area of the Netherlands which is below sea-level and the area which is susceptible to flooding. In fact, these areas overlap, so the figures should not have been combined to produce the 55 percent quoted by the IPCC.

The discovery comes just a week after a prediction about glaciers in the Himalayas proved wrong. Rather than disappearing by 2035, as IPCC reports claim, the original research underlying the report predicted the mountain ice would last until 2350.

I have reports like this backed up in a queue five or ten reports long. The revelations are coming up so fast I can't keep up.

Take this latest bit of news.

Editor of Nature forced to resign from climate review panel

Within hours of the launch of an independent panel to investigate claims that climate scientists covered up flawed data on temperature rises, one member has been forced to resign after sceptics questioned his impartiality.

// In an interview last year with Chinese State Radio, enquiry panel member Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature said: "The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong."

He went on: "In fact the only problem there has been is on some official restrictions on their ability to disseminate data otherwise they have behaved as researchers should."

Dr Campbell, was invited to sit on the enquiry panel because of his expertise in the peer review process as editor of one of the world's leading science journals.

The journal has published some of the leading papers on climate change research, including those supporting the now famous "hockey stick" graph, the subject of intense criticism by climate sceptics.

Dr Campbell has now withdrawn his membership of the panel, telling Channel 4 News: "I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks.

You believed the media? You fool. If you haven't caught on to the Failing Media game by now you deserve what you are getting. And that goes double for ANY pronouncements by the United Nations.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

posted by Simon on 02.11.10 at 05:57 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/9375






Comments

The fact only 20% of the Netherlands was reclaimed from the sea does not mean more could not now be below sea level thanks to rising sea level.

BTW, search for "Mission Beach flooding" at the Union Tribune" web site. lots of stories about Mission Beach flooding over the years, especially where MB lies below sea level.

Alan Kellogg   ·  February 13, 2010 09:15 PM

Follow Up

Since I asked you to, I went and found a story on Mission Beach flooding. The story is about Pumping Station N and the recent troubles she's had with all our rain. With the previous rise of 5' the coming 3' rise means a situation that is going to get a lot worse. By the year 2101 we may well be forced to abandon much of our beachfront communities and the Mission Bay Park area.

Now, extend that rise in sea level around the world

Alan Kellogg   ·  February 13, 2010 09:28 PM

As to the Dutch. Their Environmental Minister seems to think the report is in error. You might want to take your complaints up with her.

I do see your point though. The highest IPCC estimate for sea level rise in 100 years is about 3 ft. The IPCC nominal is about 18 inches. The IPCC low is 4 1/2 inches (IIRC) The rate observed so far (for 100 years) is 2.2 mm per year. About 8 1/2 inches per century. And the rate has been running below the trend line for the last few years.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/07/22/sea-level-rise-an-update-shows-a-slowdown/

I do agree with you on one point. A modest sea level rise coupled with lots of rain in a short time could mean trouble for coastal cities. Why if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights coastal cities could very well be flooded out. I think a boat production project with enough capacity for a billion people is in order. Petition your Congress Critter.

M. Simon   ·  February 13, 2010 10:16 PM

Couldn't find anything on Mission Beach flooding at the first link you provided.

The second link says that the problem with the pumping stations is not too much water. It is bad design.

I do agree with you on one point. A modest sea level rise coupled with lots of rain in a short time could mean trouble for coastal cities. Why if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights coastal cities could very well be flooded out.

New Paper in Science: Sea level 81,000 years ago was 1 meter higher while CO2 was lower.

We will need to pump up the CO2 to keep sea levels down. Unless the correlation is spurious. When in which case it may not matter a bit what we do as we transition from fossil fuels.

M. Simon   ·  February 13, 2010 10:31 PM

Here is a comment I liked from the second link:

What did these people expect when they moved into a low-lying, flood-prone area like Mission Beach?? That they wouldn't ever have to deal with the nuisance of floods because it hardly ever rains in San Diego?? Tough that the streets, homes and businesses are underwater temporarily, they should have known and expected such conditions. Ever heard of buyer beware?? This ain't recent history.

Don't expect to get more taxes out of me; get it from those in that live in the immediate area. Mother Nature always wins out in the long-run.

M. Simon   ·  February 13, 2010 10:35 PM

BTW I missed the 5 ft. rise. Is that counting from the time a mile thick glacier covered Chicago? I blame global warming.

M. Simon   ·  February 13, 2010 11:53 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


February 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits