The IPCC Underestimated Antarctic sea ice extent? Another ‘mistake’ or an intentional ‘oversight’?
Question by BB: The IPCC Underestimated Antarctic sea ice extent? Another ‘mistake’ or an intentional ‘oversight’?
February 16, 2010
Given all of the other so-called ‘mistakes’, is it fair to be suspicious of the IPCC’s agenda? Should the U.N. be compelled to order an independent investigation of those folks?
World Climate Report
“Another IPCC Error: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%”
“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.
We 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.
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 adds yet another problem to the growing list of errors in the IPCC WGI report, this one concerns Antarctic sea ice trends.
While all the press is about the observed declines in Arctic sea ice extent in recent decades, little attention at all is paid to the fact that the sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been on the increase.
……..the IPCC states that the Antarctic increase in sea ice extent from November 1979-December 2005 is “not statistically significant” which seems to give them good reason to play it down.
….. the peer reviewed literature, both existant at the time of the AR4 as well as published since the release of the AR4, shows that there has been a significant increase in the extent of sea ice around Antarctica since the time of the first satellite observations observed in the late 1970s. And yet the AR4 somehow “assessed” the evidence and determined not only that the increase was only half the rate established in the peer-reviewed literature, but also that it was statistically insignificant as well. And thus, the increase in sea ice in the Antarctic was downplayed in preference to highlighting the observed decline in sea ice in the Arctic.”
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
beren….. you appear to be a Warmer in Denial.
Best answer:
Answer by Didier Drogba
How come the “mistakes” are always in the same direction?
What do you think? Answer below!
JVZoo Product Feed
Incoming search terms:
- antarctic sea ice world climate report response (1)
.
THIS PROVES THAT WGI IS AS FLAWED A DOCUMENT AS WGII !
Every day now, more and more evidence is uncovered that both WG1 and II are seriously flawed documents. The supposed “scientific base” for man-made global warming is demonstrably a castle built on sand.
.
I predict that the end is nigh – for Pachuari.
When you use quotes on “mistake” are you really talking about the denier’s blogosphrere lack of simple reading ability. I have not kept up on the “mistakes”, butthe Dutch geography “mistake” is a lack of reading ability. The fact that this “mistake” gets keep repeated over and over gives the denier bloggers even less credibility (if that is even possible). Is it possible for even one of these bloggers to check on this? They just seem to quote each other and accept it as fact.
I find this quote from your link worrisome:
“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.”
Last week this was shown to be wrong??? By whom? How?
How can anybody with a good conscience make such a statement and have ZERO to back it up.
How can you read this and not see the issues with what is written?
Well they are not a scientific organization so they must have some goal or agenda. I wonder what that could be?
Here is an explanation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm
Nice try, Beren, deflecting the argument to something you can win. Yes, it’s a bit bold to say AGW has been disproven. It’s a highly partisan and unsupported statement.
Let’s get back to Antarctic sea ice, shall we? Put some numbers to it. IPCC’s AR4 claims the Arctic ice pack grew 0.47% +/- 0.8% per decade over the last 50 years. The amount of growth (0.47%) is smaller than the margin of error (0.8%). This work was done by Josefino Cosimo, by re-analyzing data found in a book he wrote:
Comiso, J.C., 2003: Large scale characteristics and variability of the global sea ice cover. In: Sea Ice – An Introduction to its Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Geology [Thomas, D. and G.S. Dieckmann (eds.)]. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, pp. 112–142.
So much for peer reviewed data… So he wrote a book with a chapter on the Antarctic ice pack, but he wasn’t happy with the result so he “re-analyzed” the data and viola! “statistically insignificant growth!”
Are you with me so far? Then in 2008, he published a paper in the peer reviewed literature which showed robust growth of 1.7% +/- .3% per decade. So which do you believe? a reanalysis of an analysis found in a textbook or something in the peer reviewed literature? Which do you think should make it into the IPCC? Gold standard my a$ $
The UN isn’t going to investigate, it is their agenda. They are after the wealth of the west to pad their pockets.