{"id":15179,"date":"2011-01-21T07:00:06","date_gmt":"2011-01-21T15:00:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/planetsave.com\/?p=15179"},"modified":"2011-01-21T07:00:06","modified_gmt":"2011-01-21T15:00:06","slug":"climate-science-mistake-dont-go-overboard-or-make-generalizations-climate-scientists-caught-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/planetsave.com\/articles\/climate-science-mistake-dont-go-overboard-or-make-generalizations-climate-scientists-caught-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Climate Science Mistake,.. Don't Go Overboard or Make Generalizations (Climate Scientists Caught It)"},"content":{"rendered":"

You may have heard about the mistake in a recent report published by an NGO on climate change and food production in the next 10 years. I imagine global warming deniers jumped all over it and maybe even the mass media did (haven’t checked to find out). Here’s a great account of what happen via a climate scientist consulted on the matter.<\/em><\/p>\n

The full repost below from RealClimate is titled “Getting things right<\/a>.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Last Monday, I was asked by a journalist whether a claim in a\u00a0new report<\/a> from a small NGO made any sense. The report was mostly focused on the impacts of climate change on food production \u2013 clearly an important topic, and one where public awareness of the scale of the risk is low. However, the study was based on a mistaken estimate of how large global warming would be in 2020. I replied to the journalist (and indirectly to the NGO itself, as did other scientists) that no, this did not make any sense, and that they should fix the errors before the report went public on Thursday. For various reasons, the NGO made no changes to their report. The\u00a0press response<\/a> to their study has therefore been almost totally dominated by the error at the beginning of the report, rather than the substance of their work on the impacts. This public relations debacle has lessons for NGOs, the press, and the public.<\/p>\n

The erroneous claim in the study was that the temperature anomaly in 2020 would be 2.4\u00baC above pre-industrial. This is obviously very different from the IPCC projections:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

which show trends of about 0.2\u00baC\/decade, and temperatures at 2020 of around 1-1.4\u00baC above pre-industrial. The claim is thus at least 1\u00baC above what it should have been, and implied trends over the next decade an order of magnitude higher than otherwise expected.<\/p>\n

How they made this mistake is quite instructive though. The steps they followed were as follows:<\/p>\n