Time to air my concerns over this IPCC “Headline Statements from the Summary for Policy Makers. Nearly every point categorized as “likely”, virtually certain”, “extremely likely” or whatever “statistical” probability they ignore, can be seriously challenged as unscientific and probably incorrect.
For example : “Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century. Under all RCP scenarios, the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971 to 2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets.” I suggest reading the following relevant and scientific article published by “Chiefio” and reblogged here.
Gee, siting problems and intrument error in sea level gauges
Then there is “Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification.” This is clearly absurd because even if CO2 reduced the salinity of the ocean it certainly cannot increase acidity that doesn’t exist. Perhaps the opposite is true? Reference:
CO2 makes the Ocean More Alkaline
And just to show that this CAGW “circus” is politically motivated:
“The report will serve as a foundation for international negotiations at events such as the U.N. Climate Leaders Summit scheduled for September. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has called on world leaders to make “bold” pledges at the meeting and to demonstrate they will achieve ambitious emissions cuts as part of a legal agreement to be signed in early 2015. Field remains optimistic that the report can spur policy and technology that will steer the Earth toward a more sustainable future.”
Reference: ‘Behind the scenes’ of the new IPCC report with Stanford scientists
Can this be any clearer?
Technically, this report, if truly represented here, is basically a load of readily challenged, meaningless garbage.
Links to documents follow.
Not so much fanfare now, since leaks pretty much revealed earlier that it’s alarmism on steroids. The always dependably worrisome Seth Borenstein, AP’s science reporter, sums up the alarmism quite well with this tweet:
I note Dr. Richard Tol’s name is not on it, as he said it was too alarmist.
The Working Group II contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report considers the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems, the observed impacts and future risks of climate change, and the potential for and limits to adaptation. The chapters of the report assess risks and opportunities for societies, economies, and ecosystems around the world.
Headline Statements from the Summary for Policymakers *
Observed Changes in the…
View original post 763 more words