The findings of the Resplandy et al paper werepeer-reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations. Moreover, even if the paper’s results had been correct, they would not have justified its findings regarding an increase to 2.0°C in the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity range and a 25% reduction in the carbon budget for 2°C global warming. Because of the wide dissemination of the paper’s results, it is extremely important that these errors are acknowledged by the authors without delay and then corrected. Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper’s findings now correct the record too.
Study by Dr. Nils-Axel Morner who headed the Department of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University. Published in the Journal of Environmental Sciences. Morner was also past president of the INQUA Commission on Sea level changes and coastal dynamics (1999-2003).
Excerpts: "All talk about a disastrous sea level rise by 2100 is nothing but scaremongering and deliberate harassment of the public by the IPCC (2013, 2018) and its media proponents."
"It is a serious mistake to claim that global sea level is in a phase of rapid rise. Observationally based facts document a present changes in absolute (eustatic) sea level ranging between ±0.0 and +1.0 mm/yr. This poses no threats what so ever. In New York City, sea level is rising at a rate of +2.84 mm/yr, which would imply an additional rise in sea level by 23.3 cm by 2100, a modest rise that can be handled without problems."
With few exceptions, the changes point in one direction – toward pessimism. When IPCC scientists sound too optimistic about the future, the political people apply a thumb to the scale. Big picture, though, this all amounts to intellectual masturbation. That scores of scientific minds participate in this pointless exercise makes one despair. The IPCC report writing process is wholly subjective. As climatologist Judith Curry explained five years ago, when IPCC personnel declare they are 95% vs 90% confident about something, there’s no math behind those numbers.
To sum up, therefore:
1. IPCC reports are a collection of subjective judgment calls. 2. Political operatives at the IPCC can – and do – override confidence levels determined by scientists. 3. These confidence levels likely have no connection to reality.