The legend, however, notes that the data comes from 4 different sources each from vastly different time periods, the carbon concentration is only the anthropogenic fraction (3-4%) of the total carbon emissions which has a different spatial distribution than the anthropogenic only, and there is an inverse correlation between sea level rise above 60 degrees N 1993-2003 and temperature decrease in the same region 1955-2003 (note anthropogenic climate changes are supposed to be most pronounced at the poles). In sum, the graph proves nothing and on close inspection just weakens the IPCC "message". How does junk science like this get through the "extensive review process of hundreds of international experts"? Probably the same way as the IPCC paleoclimate reconstructions.
No comments:
Post a Comment