Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor
Share your comments on the 98% that are accurate if you will. With particular reference to the glaciers in the Athabasca watershed that you claim is an issue, and whilst you're at it talk about Spring snowmelt times and its effect on water quality.
But you're right .... Let me present to you other evidence based on observations where the IPCC screwed up in their calculations. Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate
models. The area of summertime sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% less than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.
Current sea-level rise underestimated: Satellites show recent global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be ~80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhag...gnosis_LOW.pdf
This is really a creationist argument. Present zero evidence yet pick at the holes in the science. |
Sorry, Bagor, I don't follow you. Your last sentence is particularly bizarre. Science is all about picking at the holes. The problem with climate "science" is the scientific process has become taboo. That's what's so special about the UEA-CRU emails. It actually shows how those fellows attempt to subvert the scientific process.
As per zero evidence, the link I provided (had you read it) is about how the evidence was misrepresented (intentionally or unintentionally.)
Your link is authored by the biggest players in the AGW arena. (Isn't Mann under review at Penn State right now?) Many others sited are very well represented in the Climategate emails and are contributors to IPCC reports. Not saying they're lying (or misrepresenting the truth), but many have been hit by the splatter.