From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>

Date: Sun Feb 18 2007 - 14:07:18 EST

Date: Sun Feb 18 2007 - 14:07:18 EST

@ :)

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

<http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf>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

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourth-assessment-summary-for-policy-makers/>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

At 01:43 PM 2/18/2007, PvM wrote:

*> From SPM AR4
*

*>
*

*><quote>
*

*>In general, uncertainty ranges for results given in this Summary for
*

*>Policymakers are 90% uncertainty intervals unless stated otherwise,
*

*>i.e., there is an estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be
*

*>above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the
*

*>value could be below that range. Best estimates are given where
*

*>available. Assessed uncertainty intervals are not always symmetric
*

*>about the corresponding best estimate. Note that a number of
*

*>uncertainty ranges in the Working Group I TAR corresponded to 2-sigma
*

*>(95%), often using expert judgement. </quote>
*

*>
*

*>So no, these are not 1-sigma error bands but 90% error bands. Hope
*

*>this clarifies.
*

*>
*

*>On 2/16/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>> I can't wait until the full IPCC report comes out because I am trying to
*

*>>figure out what they are talking about with the 1.6 W/mē radiative forcing
*

*>>(with 1-sigma ranges apparently from 0.6 W/mē to 2.4 W/mē). It appears to me
*

*>>that their 2-sigma values would overlap 0 W/mē which is probably from where
*

*>>the 90% probability that they listed comes from (with 10% less than 0 W/mē).
*

*>>If this is the case then they are dramatically overstating the importance of
*

*>>the calculated radiative forcing in the same way that stating that the
*

*>>gravitational acceleration was 9.8 m/sē (with 1 sigma values from 4.0 m/sē
*

*>>to 16.0 m/sē) would be too imprecise a measurement of g to be of great use."
*

*>>~ 4 posted on 02/15/2007 8:21:39 PM EST by burzum
*

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 14:07:35 2007

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Sun Feb 18 2007 - 14:07:35 EST
*