Editor,
Two of the scientists previously on the IPCC, and who resigned are Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. and Dr. Chris Landsea. The scientific method requires a theory to be tested by observations and models; if models cannot fit the observations, they should be disregarded.
Comparing AR6-models versus observations for 1909-1942, shows that the model warming doesn’t come close to the observed warming. This is well prior to any anthropogenic carbon dioxide. What caused that warming, and why can the models not reproduce it?
For the post-1998 period, the mean model warming rate is .23C per decade while observations show only 0.1C per decade! Source: S.M. Papalexiou 2020.
My comments show that many AR6-conclusions aren’t the result of scientific discussion between different viewpoints, but rather instances where AR6-sections were written to support a conclusion, with no dissenting opinion allowed. That’s censorship.
Regarding economic losses from extreme weather, I refer to Dr. Pielke Jr. who writes that economic damage trends cannot be determined from base economic analysis but must be normalized for coastal growth in terms of population and economic exposure. This was also a conclusion of the 2014 IPCC. There is no increase in economic damage.
Dr. Phil Klotzbach at CSU, has found that there is no upward trend in U.S. hurricane landfalls, which is also true of tornadoes.
I mention a few of many relevant AR6 problems. I urge readers to research independently to become more knowledgeable.
Bob Cohen
Menlo Park
Letter writer is an oceanographer and certified consulting meteorologist
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(1) comment
Thank you for your very well researched letter. Unfortunately many in the media press will continue to use the highest IPCC projections regardless of all its inaccuracies. But fortunately billions are now being invested to produce hydrogen fuel which will drive out fossil fuels and a money raising issue for the left.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.