fred smith wrote:Okay, I will stop feeding CF Images rope. I think that he has made enough statements that make it hard for him to weasle out of his claims that the IPCC is not alarmist so here goes for quite a list of non-Himalayan glacial er events:IPCC Wrong Again: Species Loss Far Less Severe Than Feared
Wednesday, 18 May 2011 21:01 AFP
IPCC report based on "fundamentally flawed" methods that exaggerate the threat of extinction - The pace at which humans are driving animal and plant species toward extinction through habitat destruction is at least twice as slow as previously thought, according to a study released Wednesday.
The IPCC summary says
IPCC wrote:There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5°C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5°C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe
That's certainly not offering any certainties and IPCC have acknowledged that the methodology needs improvements. We're not at the point of 3.5°C temperature rises yet so we can't draw any conclusions on the accuracy or lack thereof.
One of the many dangers of global warming being thrown around is the increased incidence of malaria in Africa. The theory being that warmer climate would allow mosquitoes to transmit malaria to higher altitudes as the climate warmed up. Year after year it has been thrown out that malaria will rise as a result of global warming. Considering the typical accuracy of the IPCC, it should be no surprise that they are once again completely wrong.
A new paper from Malaria Journal is claiming that there has been an unexplained and dramatic DECREASE in the mosquitoes that cause malaria. The drop over the past 20 years cannot be explained by activities to reduce mosquitoes and the drop is ~100%. They actually put the percent drop at 99.7% and 99.8%, but you will excuse me if I round that up a tiny amount. This qualifies as a significant drop in the mosquitoes that transmit malaria.
If you look at Table 8.2 at this link http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... 4-1-2.html you'll see that a decrease in Africa by the 2020's was predicted in one scenario. They also state that
IPCC wrote:Malaria is a complex disease to model and all published models have limited parameterisation of some of the key factors that influence the geographical range and intensity of malaria transmission. Given this limitation, models project that, particularly in Africa, climate change will be associated with geographical expansions of the areas suitable for stable Plasmodium falciparum malaria in some regions and with contractions in other regions (Tanser et al., 2003; Thomas et al., 2004; van Lieshout et al., 2004; Ebi et al., 2005)
There's nothing in what the IPCC reported that can be described as "completely wrong".
You're 0 for 2 so far. Let's try a third.
'One of the most widely quoted and most alarmist passages in the main 2007 report was a warning that, by 2020, global warming could reduce crop yields in some countries in Africa by 50 per cent
The origin of this claim was a report written for a Canadian advocacy group by Ali Agoumi, a Moroccan academic who draws part of his current income from advising on how to make applications for "carbon credits"
As his primary sources he cited reports for three North African governments. But none of these remotely supported what he wrote.'
In fact, the IPCC suggests crop yields could increase in the short term - up to 2030. Agoumi's statements were footnoted in the report stating that it was gray literature. If you'd bothered to read the report you'd know that.
Mountains out of molehills Mr Smith. 0 for 3.
At this point, I'm going to go have some coffee and start work. I may come back to the other points later as time permits.