Quote:
Originally Posted by ArgoNavis
I think the world is safe from any immediate flood danger:
from
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22430
"The IPCC now says the combined contribution of the two great ice-sheets to sea-level rise will be less than seven centimeters after 100 years, not seven meters imminently, and that the Greenland ice sheet (which thickened by 50 cm between 1995 and 2005) might only melt after several millennia, probably by natural causes, just as it last did 850,000 years ago. Gore, mendaciously assisted by the IPCC bureaucracy, had exaggerated a hundredfold." |
That's not what the November Summary for Policymakers of the Synthesis Report of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in this
link, page 13 states:
Quote:
|
Contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggest virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m if global average warming were sustained for millennia in excess of 1.9 to 4.6ºC relative to preindustrial values. The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when paleoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise. {3.2.3}
|
I'd like to see a link fron Heartland where IPCC states otherwise.
Also from the heartland link:
Quote:
|
At the very heart of the IPCC’s calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: “The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005).” Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.
|
I don't understand this. Could someone please explain? I find it hard to believe "the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physicalthe Stefan-Boltzmann equation". (sic).
I did a search on "Monckton" of the
Appendices I-V: Glossary, Contributors, Reviewers, Acronyms, Permissions link and his name does not show up. Am I missing something?