Netherlands adds to UN climate report controversy

Feb 05, 2010
A picture released by the Projectbureau Delfandse Kust shows a general view of the beach in Monster, south of the Hague in the Netherlands, taken in November 2009. The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday.

The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday.

According to the Dutch authorities, only 26 percent of the country is below , and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be asked to account for its figures, environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart told AFP.

The incident could cause further embarrassment for the IPCC, which recently admitted a claim in the same report that could melt by 2035 was wrong.

IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level -- 26 percent -- to the area threatened by river flooding -- 29 percent -- Vallaart said.

"They should have been clearer," Vallaart said, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had exact figures.

Correcting the error had been "on the agenda several times" but had never actually happened, Vallaart said.

The spokesman said he regretted the fact that proper procedure was not followed and said it should not be left to politicians to check the IPCC's numbers.

The Dutch environment ministry will order a review of the report to see if it contains any more errors, Vallaart said.

The IPCC's 938-page Fourth Assessment Report spurred politicians around the world to vow action with its warning that was on the march, but the body has faced fierce criticism over the glacier mistake.

Glaciologists have discredited the Himalaya claim, which is being withdrawn, and the controversy has given fresh ammunition to climate sceptics.

No evidence could be found to show the claim had been published in a peer-reviewed journal and reports in Britain have said the reference came from green group the WWF, who in turn sourced it to the New Scientist magazine.

Explore further: Indians rally against climate change ahead of UN talks

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Glacier alarm 'regrettable error': UN climate head

Jan 23, 2010

The head of the UN's climate science panel said Saturday a doomsday prediction about the fate of Himalayan glaciers was "a regrettable error" but that he would not resign over the blunder.

Recommended for you

World greenhouse emissions threaten warming goal

13 hours ago

Emissions of greenhouse gases are rising so fast that within one generation the world will have used up its margin of safety for limiting global warming to 2°C (3.6°F), an international team of scientists ...

Tens of thousands join London climate march

14 hours ago

Tens of thousands of people in London joined a global day of protest Sunday to demand action on climate change, among them British actress Emma Thompson who said the challenge to save the planet was like ...

UN summit to test commitment to climate fund

14 hours ago

A global fund created to spearhead climate change financing faces a key test at a UN summit this week when it looks to the leaders of the industrialised world to stump up billions of dollars to fill its underflowing ...

User comments : 37

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

CarolinaScotsman
3.1 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2010
It appears that the IPCC authors were less interested in science and more interested in "proving" their personal opinions. I wonder how much valid contridictory evidence was thrown out while this bogus material was being included.
mary_hinge
4 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2010
It seems that Physorg is jumping on the new bandwagon of finding fault in the details of the IPCC. It helps sell more newspapers so lets try it here!
The only real mistake I can see here is not making clear that higher sea levels makes rivers more prone to flooding. Also, not mentioned here, is that over 50% of Holland is under sea level, whilst just over a quarter of the Netherlands is. There is always a lot of confusion over what constitutes Holland and the Netherlands, is it possible this was at the heart of the error? Whilst of interest to pedantics one wonders whether any other subject would be, or indeed has ever been, as under scrutiny as much as climate science is at the moment.
Skeptic_Heretic
2 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2010
Hardcore AGW fanatics are starting to sound like battered women. "But he really loves me, he doesn't mean it."

Truth is, some people subverted the scientific process and created a realm of fantastical statements. Now those statements are comming out and the issue's reality has been obfuscated.

For those who have a case of AGW derangement, you're not necessarily wrong, but be a bit more humble. The science is certainly not settled.

I think the most disturbing part is that they couldn't read an elevation map and create a mean. How could the mean of a sufficiently more complex data set, ie:global climate, be legitimate if such idiotic errors are included within the research.
RobertKLR
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2010
Hardcore AGW fanatics are starting to sound like battered women. "But he really loves me, he doesn't mean it."

Well put.
MikeyK
2.5 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2010
Maybe all the deniers hot air is what is resulting in record high tropospheric temperatures recorded for January (now, despite an extended solar minimum, global dimming, extra stratospheric water vapour, and a negative PDO, we are within a gnat's whisker of the highest global temperatures ever recorded) . Could this extra atmospheric heat be the result of increased precipitation,including the snow storm...hmmm oh...and lets not forget all the other global climate anomolies in the last few years....hmmm and thge skeptics argument, well they certainly can't use the climate now, (Global cooling....erhh where?) so why not use the old trusted libel, smearing cherry pickin' nit pickin' instead. Nearly worked for the ID nutjobs.
Skeptic_Heretic
1.5 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2010
The burden of proof is on those who have a hypothesis to sell. They're doing a poor job selling it to most people Mikey.
MikeyK
3 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2010
The burden of proof is on those who have a hypothesis to sell. They're doing a poor job selling it to most people Mikey.


Actually the burden of proof is on those who wish to submit an alternative hypothesis, the evidence all shows the globe is warming....fast, (nearly +0.9C in less than two years using the typical denier trick of cherrypicked datarange, if you can do it why not us ;-)) and the overwhelming evidence is that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the cause. Much as Darwinian evolution is the accepted theory though others still try to make the case of ID without the necessary peer review etc. This alternative hypothesis to CO2 being the main driver to the rise in temperatures over the 'noise'then must be subject to scrutiny and peer review. Quite simple, now get studying and come up with your theory, publish it then come back here and tell us. The onus is on you now, try constructing, not deconstructing.. try clarifying instead of muddying...
Bob_Kob
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2010
Id rather deconstruct global warming to forever 'clarify' its bullshit.

So many flaws have been found with the global warming committee. I really can't be certain that the data to suggest a trend in warming is non biased.

Therefore i suggest we forget this debacle had ever occurred.
MikeyK
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2010
What evidence do you have to show that CO2 is not the main driver of global warming? What papers do you refer to to support your position. It is easy to mouth off, as you are, without any evidence to back up your claims. Maybe you think it is the sun...erhh..no http://www.woodfo...set:1366
maybe you don't think we are warming but, ridiculous though it may be people still believe that, to use your word, b*llsh*t. http://www.drroys...n_10.jpg
Basically you and your ilke are living in denial, the rapid increase in climatic extremes was predicted as a result of AGW; if the current mild El Nino fizzles out, which it looks like it will by late spring, then expect a particularly bad and devestating hurricane season. Maybe then you might start looking instead of mouthing the same smears, distractions etc....but probably not
ForFreeMinds
1 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2010
More evidence of political hacks masquerading as scientists, and doing "whatever it takes" to ensure further funding from government officials who are salivating at getting control of energy use.
MikeyK
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2010
More evidence of political hacks masquerading as scientists, and doing "whatever it takes" to ensure further funding from government officials who are salivating at getting control of energy use.


Polital hacks as scientists?? Total and utter unverified nonsense.
Government officials have always had some control of energy use, and always will, this way a nation keeps running. "Salivating" Hmmm interesting use of Pavlovian dramatics to try and make a point.
Thanks for confirming my comments on not providing any evidence whilst mouthing off about something you either cannot understand or want to deliberately mislead...well done.
Bob_Kob
1.8 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2010
Don't worry Mikey, you can lose all the sleep you want. I'll sleep sound with my trust in the earth's incredibly complex systems to govern such a simple and natural gas.
MikeyK
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2010
Don't worry Mikey, you can lose all the sleep you want. I'll sleep sound with my trust in the earth's incredibly complex systems to govern such a simple and natural gas.


If you want to keep your head in the sand, fine by me. Just bear in mind that civilization has enjoyed a remarkable prolonged spell of relatively stable climate (is it a coincidence that society developed during this spell,and not 100,000's years ago when we were the same beast, I don't think so) and we know that small changes in atmospheric composition can cause rapid climate change.
Sleep well...
RealScience
2.5 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2010
AGW believers claimed moral high ground, but made stupid errors in their quest for impact.
AGW deniers cherry-pick one cooler year or one cold winter and call it 'proof' that AGW and even GW is false, and then complain about cherry-picking data.
A plague on both your houses!

The world has been warming recently, but whether it is AGW or natural GW is far less important than whether it will accelerate, slow, or even reverse.
Either an ice age or a 60-meter sea-level rise can ruin your whole day.

It is certain that all else being equal additional CO2 will produce warming.
But not all else is equal, and the earth has both positive and negative feedback loops.

To sort all this out will require good data, but the data we have so far is obscured by soot, contrails, inconsistent data gathering and cherry picking by both sides.

In 5 years we'll have much better data and models. In the mean time let's figure out how to address both warming and cooling economically and be ready to act.
freethinking
1 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2010
More article AGW people shouldnt read
http://www.washin...057.html

and an article for the open minded (both pro con for AGW)
http://www.theglo...1458206/
Skeptic_Heretic
2 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2010
AGW deniers cherry-pick one cooler year or one cold winter and call it 'proof' that AGW and even GW is false, and then complain about cherry-picking data.
A plague on both your houses!

I agree. That's why more study is needed, and far fewer assertions that cannot be correlated.
What evidence do you have to show that CO2 is not the main driver of global warming?

What evidence do you have that CO2 is a main driver of climate? The prevailing theory was that water vapor had the greatest affect. When and why did that change?
GrayMouser
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2010
The world has been warming recently

Part of that is because we are between ice ages. It's supposed to warm.
A different part is that we warmed between 1980 and 1998. Since then we've cooled, which is part of what led to the "hide the decline" so prominent in ClimateGate.

It is certain that all else being equal additional CO2 will produce warming.

Where is the proof of this statement? The original hypotheses by Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896 were easily falsified by R. W. Wood in 1909.
Even more telling is the assertion in FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS by GERLICH & TSCHEUSCHNER that
1) The hypotheses by Fourier and Tyndall did not include the concept of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.
2) The hypothesis by Arrhenius is not the same as what is being touted now.
3) Venus is not proof of any greenhouse effect. The temperature at an altitude where the pressure matches the Earth's is nearly the same.
mary_hinge
3 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2010
The prevailing theory was that water vapor had the greatest affect. When and why did that change?

As far as I can understand from the literature H2O is the main greenhouse gas, I don't think anyone is doubting that. However CO2 is the main driver of global warming, I don't think any sane scientist doubts that. If you can discover through scientific research that there are major changes of the properties of H2O that can account for the warming then we can all rest easy, until then the current understanding prevails.

Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Feb 10, 2010
However CO2 is the main driver of global warming, I don't think any sane scientist doubts that. If you can discover through scientific research that there are major changes of the properties of H2O that can account for the warming then we can all rest easy, until then the current understanding prevails.

Human activities produce 50,000x the amount of CO2 in water vapor. Why wouldn't you attempt to address water vapor as opposed to CO2?

And please don't speak to "precipitative effects". Water being continually pumped into the atmosphere will not ensure that it precipitates out any faster than it would based on partial pressure and atmospheric temperature. In addition, precipitation locally removes large amounts of CO2.
mary_hinge
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2010
The amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere is dependant on the temperature of the air, this means H2O has a positive feedback and will amplify CO2 caused increased temperatures.
What I think you are forgetting is that the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined mainly by temperature, and any excess is rapidly lost. Warming tropospheric temperatures show that the atmosphere, as it heats up, contains more water vapour. http://www.scienc...5749/841
Water vapour is a feedback, but it is not a forcing.
mary_hinge
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2010
You can also find out more about the subject from this paper http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf
Skeptic_Heretic
2 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2010
Water vapour is a feedback, but it is not a forcing.

Statement A)H2O is responsible for the majority of the Greenhouse effect which warms the atmosphere of the planet to it's current temperature.

Statement B)the amount of water contained in the atmosphere is dependent on the temperature of the air

Either A or B is incorrect. It cannot be both.

Water vapour is a feedback, but it is not a forcing.
Is patently false as it fails the logic sniff test. There are holes in AGW large enough to drive a car carrier full of Priuses (Prii?) through. There si a lot more investigation to be done as AGW is filled with self contradicting information like the above, without much qualifying explanation. To assert the majority of what you have above is disingenuous as you do not have the answer to the questions posed, and neither do I.

I remain skeptical but open minded. There's a lot more to determine before the hypothesis of AGW is even falsifiable.
mary_hinge
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2010
I don't think you have understood me so I shall be pleased to clarify. In a nutshell its level in the atmosphere depends on temperature. Excess water vapour rains out in days. Excess CO2 accumulates, warming the atmosphere, which raises water vapour levels and causes further warming.
Therefore this does answer your points, even if human activity pumps much more water vapour into the atmosphere this will soon, usually in around a week or so, precipitate out. Yes precipitation reduces atmospheric CO2 on a local level but, unlike water vapour, CO2 diffuses more readily around the atmosphere.
Off course it is more complicated than that, H2O in different forms is a global coolant too, but don't confuse yourself too much with that, stick to the basics first.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Feb 10, 2010
Yes precipitation reduces atmospheric CO2 on a local level but, unlike water vapour, CO2 diffuses more readily around the atmosphere.
Want to back this statement up? H2O is the most well mixed gas in the atmosphere. If the progression is as you state above then CO2 concentration would be highest at the lowest altitudes and in deserts, which it is not.

You encourage me to stick to the basics, but there is nothing basic about this topic. It is complex and poorly understood, there are no "basics" here, just supposition and hypothesis.

Like I've said above, I remain skeptical but open minded. Don't speak in absolutes when you have little idea as to what is actually occuring.
mary_hinge
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2010
[ H2O is the most well mixed gas in the atmosphere.


Can I just point out one major flaw here with your point...clouds. I see a large number of not-so-well-mixed water in the atmosphere...can you?
Of course we should be glad that CO2 is an especially efficient diffuser, kind of helps with respiration...wouldn't you agree?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Feb 10, 2010
[ H2O is the most well mixed gas in the atmosphere.


Can I just point out one major flaw here with your point...clouds. I see a large number of not-so-well-mixed water in the atmosphere...can you?
Of course we should be glad that CO2 is an especially efficient diffuser, kind of helps with respiration...wouldn't you agree?

Clouds are not water vapor, clouds are particulate water droplets.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
mary_hinge
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2010

Clouds are not water vapor, clouds are particulate water droplets.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?


Oh absolutely, but you seem a little confused my dear. Perhaps you can supply sources for your claim that H2O is a more efficient diffuser than CO2 (to clarify this includes vertical as well as horizontal mixing. Then you could tell us why, if as you say H2O is a better diffuser, there is more CO2 than H2O at higher altitudes?
Enjoy your search and I look forward to reading your progress.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Feb 10, 2010
if as you say H2O is a better diffuser, there is more CO2 than H2O at higher altitudes?


Would you like to explain what a "diffuser" is because I have no idea how you're attempting to use that word.

CO2 is largely limited to the troposphere where H2O is not for one. Secondarily CO2 wouldn't be mixed by anything if it wasn't for the thermal dynamics of water vapor under uneven energetic pressure.

Again, do you have any idea what you're talking about?
mary_hinge
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2010
So you are not up to the challenge of supplying sources for your POV, fair enough.
So in a nutshell you don't agree that atmospheric H2O concentration is limited by the air temperature and that any excess H2O is quickly removed from the atmosphere.
I am not getting into a meaningless discussion on this subject so feel free to leave your final point, presumably sans references.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Feb 10, 2010
So you are not up to the challenge of supplying sources for your POV, fair enough.
After you my dear.
mary_hinge
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2010
As above
You can also find out more about the subject from this paper http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf

The amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere is dependant on the temperature of the air, this means H2O has a positive feedback and will amplify CO2 caused increased temperatures.
What I think you are forgetting is that the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined mainly by temperature, and any excess is rapidly lost. Warming tropospheric temperatures show that the atmosphere, as it heats up, contains more water vapour. http://www.scienc...5749/841
Water vapour is a feedback, but it is not a forcing.

Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Feb 10, 2010
H2O in relation to CO2 mixture: http://ieeexplore...ion=-203

and

http://www.its.bl...ract.pdf]http://www.its.bl...ract.pdf[/url]

Water Vapor mechnics in the atmosphere:

http://www.its.bl...ract.pdf]http://www.its.bl...ract.pdf[/url]

http://www.temple...imer.pdf

http://oai.dtic.m...DA039380

http://books.goog...;f=false

And just for you:
http://www.docsto...ospheres
mary_hinge
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2010
I think I can see what game you are playing. The links provide information to what has been discussed, i.e. H2O is a major greenhouse gas and that it has multiple feedback mechanisms. None of the links show that atmospheric H2O is a forcer which is what is at the heart of the discussion. If you think about it, it is just as well, H2O regulates the temperature very nicely, if it was a driver as well as having positive feedback , then life as we would not have the biodiversity we are knowing and loving, and hoping we can salvage for future generations.

Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Feb 11, 2010
then life as we would not have the biodiversity we are knowing and loving, and hoping we can salvage for future generations.
Another erroneous statement.

As far as we know, we're living during the peak of biological diversity. Typically that shows that the environment is overly suitable for deviation within the genetics of the various species.
croghan27
1 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2010
A couple of points: the offending passage says: “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level”

This is a direct quote from ..... the Dutch government - the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Which lead to ".... one of the more ironic episodes in its history when the Dutch parliament last Monday derided the IPCC, in a heated debate, for printing information provided by … the Dutch government."

At any rate - the figure has no bearing on any conclusions drawn by the IPCC report and has nothing to do with climate science.

Good swing, deniers .... but there was no ball pitched in this case,
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Feb 17, 2010
This is a direct quote from ..... the Dutch government - the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Sorry but the PBL is not a part of the Dutch government. That's like saying the Heartland Institute is part of the US Government.

At any rate - the figure has no bearing on any conclusions drawn by the IPCC report and has nothing to do with climate science.

I wouldn't go publishing something from an independent think tank without checking their figures first if I were part of the UN's "Nobel Lauriate IPCC"
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2010
... However CO2 is the main driver of global warming, I don't think any sane scientist doubts that. ...


Actually, there are many sane scientists who have their doubts. It is just that people with IPCC-manufactured blinders on often do not see the material.

In fact, when the TAR was submitted a panel of experts reviewed the TAR and a couple of the scientists wrote scathing reviews of the material regarding CO2 and the IPCC's 'exaggeration factor' of between 4 and 6.

Were it not for climategate the public may not even have been made aware of that 'exaggeration factor.'

Exaggeration factor. Fudge factor. Neither of these sorts of things belong in the science.

The Netherlands information is just one more such exaggeration factor out of a number.