What now that we have found yet another IPCC Error that Antarctic Sea Ice Increase is Underestimated by 50%?

Question

Several errors have been recently uncovered in the 4th Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These include problems with Himalayan glaciers, African agriculture, Amazon rainforests, Dutch geography, and attribution of damages from extreme weather events. More seem to turn up daily. Most of these errors stem from the IPCC’s reliance on non-peer reviewed sources.

The defenders of the IPCC have contended that most of these errors are minor in significance and are confined to the Working Group II Report (the one on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) of the IPCC which was put together by representatives from various regional interests and that there was not as much hard science available to call upon as there was in the Working Group I report (“The Physical Science Basis”). The IPCC defenders argue that there have been no (or practically no) problems identified in the Working Group I (WGI) report on the science.

Well I humbly disagree.

In fact, the WGI report is built upon a process which, as revealed by the Climategate emails, is, by its very nature, designed not to produce an accurate view of the state of climate science, but instead to be an “assessment” of the state of climate science—an assessment largely driven by preconceived ideas of the IPCC design team and promulgated by various elite chapter authors. The end result of this “assessment” is to elevate evidence which supports the preconceived ideas and denigrate (or ignore) ideas that run counter to it.

These practices are clearly laid bare in several recent Petitions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—petitions asking the EPA to reconsider its “Endangerment Finding” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases endanger our public health and welfare. The basis of the various petitions is that the process is so flawed that the IPCC cannot be considered a reliable provider of the true state of climate science, something that the EPA heavily relies on the IPCC to be. The most thorough of these petitions contains over 200 pages of descriptions of IPCC problems and it a true eye-opener into how bad things had become.

There is no doubt that the 200+ pages would continue to swell further had the submission deadline not been so tight. New material is being revealed daily.

Just last week, the IPCC’s (and thus EPA’s) primary assertion that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations” was shown to be wrong. This argument isn’t included in the Petition.

This adds yet another problem to the growing list of errors in the IPCC WGI report, this one concerns Antarctic sea ice trends.

More available at the link below...
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/16/another-ipcc-error-antarctic-sea-ice-increase-underestimated-by-50/

Answer 1

we've been telling the warmers how antartica ice is growing, that the sea ice down there is growing but they go straight to the playbook about the western sea ice, ignoring the fact that underwater volcanoes are doing most of the melting there as shown in the pictures at the bottom of this page.

again nothing surprises me anymore about the GW movement

Answer 2

What I find the most interesting is that the believers in AGW use exactly the same arguments and peer review system that the Inquisition used to suppress the scientist Galileo several hundred years ago. This is why scientists developed the scientific method which fails AGW as none scientific to prevent the peer review religious freaks from suppressing science as they did during the inquisition.



So peer review is now and always has been religious suppression of science and anything claiming peer review should be acknowledged by all scientists as religious propaganda.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

http://www.examiner.com/x-4648-Atlanta-Weather-Examiner~y2009m6d21-Sun-spot-cycle-impacting-global-warming-and-cooling



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:0Master_Past_20000yrs_temperatures_icecore_Vostok_150dpi.png

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/CO2myth.html

http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Answer 3

It's fake. But I'm sure people will find some sort of excuse or say mean things to you just because they don't want to believe it.

Answer 4

So they found another lie by those who have shown time and time again that they will lie for political ends. Why are you shocked , they are already proven liars, you can't trust anything that they say, What would really really shocking to me would be to discover any truth in their statements.

Answer 5

It is not 200+ pages of evidence that support global warming.

Documentation about this amounts to many tens of thousands of pages of information.

For sure mistakes happen, but these are insignificant.



I have looked at the "evidence" from both sides.

The anti-warming "evidence" consists ONLY of denouncing global warming facts, and speculation over natural temperature cycles of the earth.

Not one piece of real evidence supports their "theories".



It is reminiscent of how Galileo was condemned by the church, and imprisoned for proving the earth went round the sun. How dare he suggest that the earth is not the centre of the universe ?

He rocked the boat, and global warming facts do the same for the oil and energy industries, who have as much power now, as the church had then.