Sunday, August 17, 2014

Read this if you want to understand the most expensive mistake in human history--------Climate Science Does Not Support IPCC Conclusions

Articles: Climate Science Does Not Support IPCC Conclusions:
"Since 2008, the Chicago-based, libertarian-leaning Heartland Institute has organized nine ICCCs (International Conferences on Climate Change).
Norman Rogers (American Thinker, Aug 9, 2014) has given a general overview of ICCC-9 (at Las Vegas), which attracted an audience of well over 600 and featured speakers from 12 nations.
Here I present a more detailed and personalized account of the two main science issues that appear to be of general concern.
The first has to do with future temperatures and the second has to do with future sea level rise (SLR)."
In my view, CS may actually be close to zero. This means CO2 has very little influence on climate change -- probably because of negative feedback. There is still debate, however, about what kind of negative feedback to expect. Should it come from water vapor or from clouds?  
1.  IPCC’s ever-changing, non-existing evidence for AGW 
First, I want to critique IPCC reports #1 (1990) to #5 (2013). As a so-called ‘expert reviewer’ I have enjoyed a unique observation platform for successive IPCC drafts. It is rather amusing that the Summaries talk about increasing certainty for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) -- while at the same time modeled temperatures increasingly diverge from those actually observed [S-2]. 

First, we note that each report “Summary” is produced by a political consensus, not like the underlying scientific report.  [Doubting readers can visit the web site]  As Rogers points out, the U.N. mandate is: “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change…”  There is no mandate to consider any other causations, such as natural ones related to solar change and ocean circulation cycles -- just presumptive human causes, such as fossil fuels. The IPCC sees a human climate-fingerprint everywhere because that is what they are looking for. 

No comments: