SPM acknowledges fifteen year warming lack
In spite of predictions of inevitable increase and a 7% rise in CO2 atmospheric concentration. The notion of a Type error for this extended duration is severely improbable (especially given how it was swept under the rug by the IPCC until the last minute) and could be commented upon if a null hypothesis were adequately entertained by their research.
Alternative 'deep ocean' explanation contains crucial flaw
Omitted science: heat must travel via the shallow ocean to reach the deep.
Great, except the shallow ocean hasn't warmed since 2003.
The 73 models compiled diverge in their certainty
UN-IPCC prediction v What really happened
34 years of research later and the model is worse
The 'Charney' climate report (1979) posits the same limits as AR4 (2007), a rise of 2-4.5C for every doubling of carbon dioxide and AR5 (2013) increases the range predicted to 1.5-4.5C. The range should be getting smaller as the models become more effective at prediction.
IPCC official line: "Low confidence" predicting tropical cyclones and extreme drought events
You have one job, guys.
You've had how many years?
How many billions?
Is post-1950 warming really "unprecedented"?
Not according to the Hadley (UK) records, which considered it as similar to the 1910-1940 level.
SPM implicates carbon monoxide (CO)
Slight problem: Carbon monoxide isn't a greenhouse gas.
Claims to include all important science relevant to climate
Unless you count solar magnetic activity.
Goalposts of year are moved
Warming 'trend' from 1880 to 2012.
After the Little Ice Age.
Compressing the line of the cooling between 1940-1975, when the predominant climate theory was Global Cooling.
Fails to mention natural weather events contributing to warming, such as Super El Nino in 1998.
'Global' troposphere warming
except the tropical one aka the 'missing hotspot'.
Sea levels used to be much higher
but they don't count because reasons.
Five metres minimum - unimportant to any considerations whatsoever, apparently.
NIPCC (nongovernmental) conclusions missing from mass media
Apolitical treatment of science? Who wants that?
As its own SPM concludes;
"1. We conclude that neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late 20th century surface warming (1979 to 2000) lies outside normal natural variability, nor is it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth's history. Furthermore, solar forcing of temperature change is more important than currently recognized, and evidence is lacking that a 2-degree C rise in temperature (from whatever cause) would be globally harmful.
2. We conclude that no unambiguous evidence exists for adverse changes to the global environment caused by human-related CO2 emission. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate, sea-level rise is not accelerating, and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events. An increased release of methane into the atmosphere from permafrost or sub-seabed gas hydrates is unlikely.
3. We conclude that the current generation of global climate models is unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 years ahead -- let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public-policy formulation until they have been validated and shown to have predictive value."