The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports have the following stated goals:
“A comprehensive and rigourous picture of the global present state of knowledge of climate change”
and
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been established by WMO and UNEP to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
However, the IPCC WG 1 Chapter 3 report failed in this goal.
This weblog illustrates this defect using the example of their assessment of the multi-decadal land near-surface temperature trend data, where peer reviewed papers that conflicted with the robustness of the surface air temperature trends are ignored. Later Climate Science weblogs will document this issue with other climate issues.
Readers of Climate Science are invited to present other important peer reviewed papers that were available to the IPCC that were ignored in their assessment as further evidence to document IPCC bias.
To evaluate the IPCC’s claim to be comprehensive, we cross-compared IPCC WG1 references on near-surface air temperature trends with the peer-reviewed citations that have been given in Climate Science. We selected only papers that appeared before about May 2006 so they were readily available to the IPCC Lead authors.
The comparison follows where the bold faced citations are in the IPCC WG1 Report:
I. ISSUES WITH THE ROBUSTNESS OF THE IPCC CONFIDENCE IN THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORD
Chase, T.N., R.A. Pielke Sr., J.A. Knaff, T.G.F. Kittel, and J.L. Eastman, 2000: A comparison of regional trends in 1979-1997 depth-averaged tropospheric temperatures. Int. J. Climatology, 20, 503-518.
Davey, C.A., and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2005: Microclimate exposures of surface-based weather stations - implications for the assessment of long-term temperature trends. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., Vol. 86, No. 4, 497–504.
Davey, C.A., R.A. Pielke Sr., and K.P. Gallo, 2006: Differences between near-surface equivalent temperature and temperature trends for the eastern United States - Equivalent temperature as an alternative measure of heat content. Global and Planetary Change, 54, 19–32.
de Laat, A.T.J. and A.N. Maurellis, 2006: Evidence for influence of anthropogenic surface processes on lower tropospheric and surface temperature trends. International Journal of Climatology, 26, 897-913.
González, J. E., J. C. Luvall, D. Rickman, D. E. Comarazamy, A. J. Picón, E. W. Harmsen, H. Parsiani, N. RamÃrez, R. Vázquez, R. Williams, R. B. Waide, and C. A. Tepley, 2005: Urban heat islands developing in coastal tropical cities. Eos Trans. AGU, 86(42), 397.
Hale, R.C., K.P. Gallo, T.W. Owen, and T.R. Loveland, 2006: Land use/land cover change effects on temperature trends at U.S. Climate Normals Stations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, doi:10.1029/2006GL026358.
Hanamean, J.R. Jr., R.A. Pielke Sr., C.L. Castro, D.S. Ojima, B.C. Reed, and Z. Gao, 2003: Vegetation impacts on maximum and minimum temperatures in northeast Colorado. Meteorological Applications, 10, 203-215.
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and Mki. Sato, 1999: GISS analysis of surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 30997-31022, doi:10.1029/1999JD900835.
Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl, 2001: A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 23947-23963, doi:10.1029/2001JD000354.
Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, Ju. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev, 2005: Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science 308, 1431-1435, doi:10.1126/science.1110252.
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, L. Nazarenko, A. Lacis, G.A. Schmidt, G. Russell, I. Aleinov, M. Bauer, S. Bauer, N. Bell, B. Cairns, V. Canuto, M. Chandler, Y. Cheng, A. Del Genio, G. Faluvegi, E. Fleming, A. Friend, T. Hall, C. Jackman, M. Kelley, N. Kiang, D. Koch, J. Lean, J. Lerner, K. Lo, S. Menon, R. Miller, P. Minnis, T. Novakov, V. Oinas, Ja. Perlwitz, Ju. Perlwitz, D. Rind, A. Romanou, D. Shindell, P. Stone, S. Sun, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher, B. Wielicki, T. Wong, M. Yao, and S. Zhang 2005. Efficacy of climate forcings. J. Geophys. Res. 110, D18104, doi:10.1029/2005JD005776.
Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade, 2006: Global temperature change. PNAS, 103, 14288 - 14293.
He, J. F., J. Y. Liu, D. F. Zhuang, W. Zhang, and M. L. Liu 2007: Assessing the effect of land use/land cover change on the change of urban heat island intensity Theor. Appl. Climatol., DOI 10.1007/s00704-006-0273-1
Holder, C., R. Boyles, A. Syed, D. Niyogi, and S. Raman, 2006: Comparison of Collocated Automated (NCECONet) and Manual (COOP) Climate Observations in North Carolina. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 23, 671–682.
Huang Y., R. E. Dickinson and W. L. Chameides, 2006: Impact of aerosol indirect effect on surface temperature over East Asia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 4371-4376, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0504428103.
Hubbard, K.G., and X. Lin, 2006: Reexamination of instrument change effects in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L15710, doi:10.1029/2006GL027069.
Jones, P.D., and A. Moberg. 2003: Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001. J. Climate 16, 206-223.
Kalnay E., and M. Cai, 2003a: Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate. Nature, 423, 528-531;
Kalnay, E. and M. Cai, 2003b: Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate - Corrigenda. Nature, 425, 102.
Kalnay, E., M. Cai, H. Li, and J. Tobin, 2006: Estimation of the impact of land-surface forcings on temperature trends in eastern United States J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 111, No. D6, D06106.
Karl, T.R., S.J. Hassol, C.D. Miller, and W.L. Murray, Eds., 2006: Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. A Report by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC.
Lim, Y.K., M. Cai, E. Kalnay, and L. Zhou, 2005: Observational evidence of sensitivity of surface climate changes to land types and urbanization. Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 32, No. 22, L2271210.1029/2005GL024267.
Mahmood, R., S.A. Foster, and D. Logan, 2006: The GeoProfile metadata, exposure of instruments, and measurement bias in climatic record revisited. Int. J. Climatology, 26(8), 1091-1124.
Parker, D.E., 2004: Large-scale warming is not urban. Nature, 432, 290, doi:10.1038/432290a;
Peterson, T.C., 2003: Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found. J. Climate, 16, 2941–2959.
Peterson, T.C., 2006. Examination of potential biases in air temperature caused by poor station locations. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 87, 1073-1089.
Peterson, T.C. and R.S. Vose, 1997: An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network temperature data base. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 2837-2849,
Peterson, T.C., D.R. Easterling, T.R. Karl, P. Ya. Groisman, N. Nicholls, N. Plummer, S. Torok, I. Auer, R. Boehm, D. Gullett, L. Vincent, R. Heino, H. Tuomenvirta, O. Mestre, T. Szentimre, J. Salinger, E. Førland, I. Hanssen-Bauer, H. Alexandersson, P. Jones, D. Parker, 1998: Homogeneity adjustments of in situ atmospheric climate data: A review. Int. J. Climatology, 18, 1493-1517.
Robeson, S.M., 2004: Trends in time-varying percentiles of daily minimum and maximum temperature over North America. Geophys. Res. Letts., 31, L04203, doi:10.1029/2003GL019019.
Runnalls, K.E. and T.R. Oke, 2006: A technique to detect microclimatic inhomogeneities in historical records of screen-level air temperature. J. Climate, 19, 959-978
Schmidt, G.A., R. Ruedy, J.E. Hansen, I. Aleinov, N. Bell, M. Bauer, S. Bauer, B. Cairns, V. Canuto, Y. Cheng, A. Del Genio, G. Faluvegi, A.D. Friend, T.M. Hall, Y. Hu, M. Kelley, N.Y. Kiang, D. Koch, A.A. Lacis, J. Lerner, K.K. Lo, R.L. Miller, L. Nazarenko, V. Oinas, Ja. Perlwitz, Ju. Perlwitz, D. Rind, A. Romanou, G.L. Russell, Mki. Sato, D.T. Shindell, P.H. Stone, S. Sun, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher, and M.-S. Yao, 2006: Present day atmospheric simulations using GISS ModelE: Comparison to in-situ, satellite and reanalysis data. J. Climate, 19, 153-192,
Trenberth, K.E., 2004: Rural land-use change and climate. Nature, 427, 213, doi:10.1038/427213a. doi:10.1175/JCLI3612.1.
Vose, R.S., T.R. Karl, D.R. Easterling, C.N. Williams, and M.J. Menne, 2004: Impact of land-use change on climate. Nature, 427, 213-21
Vose, R., D.R. Easterling, and B. Gleason, 2005: Maximum and minimum temperature trends for the globe: An update through 2004. Geophys. Res. Letts.,. 32, L23822, doi:10.1029/2005GL024379
Vose, R.S., D.R. Easterling, T.R. Karl, and M. Helfert, 2005: Comments on “Microclimate Exposures of Surface-Based Weather Stations�. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 86, 504–506.
Zhou, L., R.E. Dickinson , Y. Tian, J. Fang , Q. Li , R.K. Kaufmann, C.J. Tucker, and R.B. Myneni, 2004: Evidence for a significant urbanization effect on climate in China. PNAS, 101, 9540-9544.
If the papers were neglected because they were redundant, this would be no problem. However, they are ignored specifically because they conflict with the assessment that is presented in the IPCC WG1 Report, and the Lead Authors do not agree with that perspective!
That is hardly honoring the IPCC commitment to provide
“A comprehensive and rigourous picture of the global present state of knowledge of climate change”.
Moreover, the conflict of interest that was identified in the CCSP Report “”Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences” is perpetuated in the IPCC WG1 Chapter 3 Report [where the Editor of this CCSP Report, Tom Karl, is also Review Editor for the Chapter 3 of the 2007 IPCC WG1 Report].
These comments were made with respect to this CCSP Report
“The process for completing the CCSP Report excluded valid scientific perspectives under the charge of the Committee. The Editor of the Report systematically excluded a range of views on the issue of understanding and reconciling lower atmospheric temperature trends. The Executive Summary of the CCSP Report ignores critical scientific issues and makes unbalanced conclusions concerning our current understanding of temperature trendsâ€?.
“Future assessment Committees need to appoint members with a diversity of views and who do not have a significant conflict of interest with respect to their own work. Such Committees should be chaired by individuals committed to the presentation of a diversity of perspectives and unwilling to engage in strong-arm tactics to enforce a narrow perspective. Any such committee should be charged with summarizing all relevant literature, even if inconvenient, or which presents a view not held by certain members of the Committee.”
The IPCC WG1 Chapter 3 Report process made the same mistakes and failed to provide an objective assessment. Indeed the selection of papers to present in the IPCC (as well as how the work of others that was cited was dismissed) had a clear conflict of interest as the following individuals cited their research prominently yet were also a Review Editor (Tom Karl), works for the Review Editor (Tom Peterson, Russ Vose, David Easterling), were Coordinating Lead Authors (Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones), were Lead Authors (Dave Easterling and David Parker), or a Contributing Author (Russ Vose).
In fact, as stated above, the CCSP Report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences“, with its documented bias, was chaired by the same person as the Review Editor of the IPCC WG1 Chapter 3 Report (Tom Karl)! Regardless of his professional expertise, he is still overseeing an assessment which is evaluating his own research. There cannot be a clearer conflict of interest.
The IPCC WG1 Chapter 3 Report clearly cherrypicked information on the robustness of the land near-surface air temperature to bolster their advocacy of a particular perspective on the role of humans within the climate system. As a result, policymakers and the public have been given a false (or at best an incomplete) assessment of the multi-decadal global average near-surface air temperature trends.
Interesting, and this is only part 1.
Small point - typo - it’s Phil Jones, not Jobes.
Bigger point here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1471
Comment by Paul Biggs — June 20, 2007 @ 7:34 am
Roger,
Here is my recent post:
Here are the results of analysis of the temperature records from the lighthouse at Quatsino, BC, which is located on the West Coast of Vancouver Island
Sample Interval : March 16-26
Sample Temperature : Daily Minimum
Sample El Nino Years: 1900 and 1998
Sample La Nina Years: 1899 and 1999
Results:
Mean Minimum +/- SD Deg K, EN/LN Index
El Nino Year: 1900: 276.4 +/- 2.5 EN Index=+1.8
El Nino Year: 1998: 277.3 +/- 1.7 EN Index=+3.3
La Nina Year: 1899: 273.3 +/- 1.0 LN Index=-0.5
La Nina Year: 1999: 275.5 +/- 1.8 LN Index=-0.8
These data speak for themselves, as they always do, and they say: No change in the mean daily minimum temperature
at and around the Spring Equinox at the Quatsino Station for a century.
Absolute truth is in the treasure chests (filling cabinets with temp records) of the lighthouses.
You are a land lubber, and I invite you to come to super natural, beautiful Brtish Columbia, “The best place on earth to live”, find a tall ship, and have the Captain sail you to lighthouses (these are about 80 of ‘em) where you can collect the treasure chests.
{Deleted]
Mote: Steve McIntyre has already scolded me for execess hyperbole. He snipped out of one of post about my comment
on IPCC “Data Message Oil”
Comment by Harold Pierce, Jr — June 20, 2007 @ 8:25 am
Thanks Paul! The typo is corrected.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 20, 2007 @ 8:31 am
Here is my comment that Steve snipped:
Sniff, I smell massage oil!. Sniff, Sniff, Or maybe snake oil! Sniff, Sniff, Sniff, Whoa! It’s a blend of massge oil and snake oil! Sniff, Sniff…Sniff,Sniff, And its mostly snake oil!!!
Comment by Harold Pierce, Jr — June 20, 2007 @ 8:41 am
If I were a young, up and coming PhD candidate, I would immerse myself in the above list of publications. What a treasure trove!
Comment by Steve Sadlov — June 20, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Roger: Fascinating! As a scientist, I would have been gobsmacked when I read this, if Steve McIntyre had not already desensitized me by showing how much of the IPCC type of climate science is simply pure garbage. Keep up the great work.
Comment by jae — June 20, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
This was an email I sent to Anthony Watts and Dr. Pielke regarding the issues of surface temperature measurments:
Comment by Bruce Hall — June 20, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
To clarify:
The unbolded papers clash with the IPCC report and were ignored, the bolded ones were employed. Is that what these two font differences indicate?
If so, how does
Peterson, T.C., 2006. Examination of potential biases in air temperature caused by poor station locations. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 87, 1073-1089.
fit, as it seems to be arguing that poorly placed stations do not caus “any bias in the …temperature change record”.
Or am I reading the above comments wrongly?
Comment by bigcitylib — June 20, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
bigcitylib - Thank you for your comment.
Peterson 2006 was not cited by the IPCC, perhaps because they then would have had to cite Davey and Pielke 2005. The bold faced citations are the ones that were cited by the 2007 IPCC WG1 Report.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 20, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Roughly put, Davey and Pielke 05 hypothesize that the poorly placed sites might be introducing a bias into the temperature readings, thus calling into question the IPCC assessments. Peterson then comes along a year later and suggests that it is NOT the case that poor citing causes a “warm bias or any bias”.
You are arguing that, essentially, they are not citing the paper that answers the hypothesis you put forward and which therefore supports the IPCC assessment because they don’t want to cite your origonal paper. And this instead of saying that Pielke made claim X and Peterson 2006 seems to refute this claim.
This does not make any sense to me, and in any case it is clearly not the case that Peterson 06 is excluded because Peterson 06 “conflicted with the robustness of the surface air temperature trends”.
Comment by bigcitylib — June 20, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Furthermore, while its only possible to look at the abstract of
Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade, 2006: Global temperature change. PNAS, 103, 14288 - 14293.
I doubt this was excluded because it conflicted etc.
Comment by bigcitylib — June 20, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
The names and comments of the 2,500 IPCC scientists need to be declassified. When the names and comments are publicly available it will be much easier to detect and attribute bias in the IPCC reports.
Comment by Reid — June 20, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
bigcitylib - You are missing the point. They did exclude papers that supported their perspective which were redundant (such as Peterson 2006 and Hansen et al 2006).
Much more importantly, however, they ignored peer reviewed papers that conflicted with their viewpoint on the robustness of the multi-decadal near-surface air temperature trend.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 20, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
So the list you give is of both papers that were excluded because they were redundant and papers that were excluded because they conflicted and etc.
So shouldn’t your list somehow mark which of these was which, or maybe remove the ones excluded because of redundancy? At the end of the day it seems you would have a somewhat less impressive list.
(And didn’t you just say that they exluded Peterson because they didn’t want to site Pielke? But whatever.)
Comment by bigcitylib — June 20, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
I should improve my spelling. But one good thing that might come out of marking papers excluded because of redundancy from your list is that it would then be possible to contact the authors of the other papers and simply ask them if they agreed with your assertion that they were excluded because they conflicted etc.
Comment by bigcitylib — June 20, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
bigcitylib - We elected to include all of the papers on Climate Science that we refered to in our weblogs that dealt with surface temperature trends, so as to not exclude any. Four of the papers in our non-bold faced list could be interpreted as redundant. The list is still significant (and even the exclusion of one peer reviewed paper is a serious concern if it rasies a substantive issue). We can actually add more to the list; e.g.
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, and J. Morgan, 2004: Assessing “global warming” with surface heat content. Eos, 85, No. 21, 210-211
http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-290.pdf
so the ignored papers, if anything, will grow.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 20, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
bigcitylib:
Does it matter whether 3 papers with contrary findings were ignored or whether it was 30? As far as I know, paper counts are not part of the methodology of science any more than is consensus — although I’m told they (both paper counts and consensus) are part of the methodology for determining tenure!
It seems to me if there are contrary views/findings they should have to be confronted rather than ignored (after being referenced, of course).
Comment by Indur Goklany — June 20, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
The most helpful list though, and the list that would support your argument best is one that includes only non-refuted, non-conforming papers, i.e the ones that the IPCC is deliberately avoiding. Otherwise it looks a bit like you’re padding your list out. Maybe you could provide two lists?
Comment by Nathan — June 20, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Mr. Pielke wrote:
“Four of the papers in our non-bold faced list could be interpreted as redundant.”
And what would the other pair be?
Comment by bigcitylib — June 20, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
Nathan and bigcitylib-
These papers are redundant ones with the IPCC in that they do not broaden their perspective;
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and Mki. Sato, 1999: GISS analysis of surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 30997-31022, doi:10.1029/1999JD900835.
Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade, 2006: Global temperature change. PNAS, 103, 14288 - 14293.
Peterson, T.C., 2006. Examination of potential biases in air temperature caused by poor station locations. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 87, 1073-1089.
Vose, R.S., D.R. Easterling, T.R. Karl, and M. Helfert, 2005: Comments on “Microclimate Exposures of Surface-Based Weather Stations�. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 86, 504–506.
The remainder present perspectives that were ignored by the IPCC. And, as I mentioned in #16, there are additional papers that were ignored, but the case has been clearly made with the papers cited in this weblog that the IPCC deliberately excluded viewpoints that did not conform with their view. This is counter to their charge to provide
“A comprehensive and rigourous picture of the global present state of knowledge of climate change�
Indeed, your comments would be more valuable if you explained why the conclusions of these peer reviewed science papers should be excluded.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 20, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
It’s strange that they would deliberately leave papers out, as it is such an obvious flaw in their process. Have they explained anywhere why they didn’t address them? I am curious because ‘deliberately’ ignoring them seems so… Stupid. If they are deliberately ignoring them then they are basically manipulating the data in the stupidest way known. Deliberate manipulation normally requires the manipulator to have some semblance of subterfuge, or deviousness. I just feel there is something missing from this debate. I am not trying to defend the IPCC, I am just curious because such an obvious flaw seems unbelievable.
Comment by Nathan — June 20, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
Roger, I would encourage you to try to get a copy of the review comments and author responses for chapter 3. After much argumentation with IPCC, they sent me the review comments and author responses for chapter 6, attaching the condition that I was supposedly not permitted to cite or re-distribute the comments. IPCC is trying vigorously to keep these comments and responses from being online.
You know that, if they wanted to, the comments would be online in a heartbeat.
I’m puzzled as to the basis of their purported prohibition of citation as the comments are not confidential; they are supposed to be in an open archive and a hard copy is available, even if inconveniently, at Harvard.
Because they have attached this ridiculous condition, I have tried to get a copy free and clear of a purported restriction, by sending an FOI request to NOAA asking them for documents pertaining to the review comments and author responses. Susan Solomon, WG1 Chairman, was at all time a NOAA employee and in all correpondence, both she and Martin Manning, head of the WG1 TSU used a NOAA email address.
You might try the same approach and, if you are successful, I predict that you will be both fascinated and dumbfounded by the review comments and author responses. At a minimum, you’ll be able to see if they reflect the bias that you believe to be there.
At this point, I don’t know how NOAA plans to respond to the FOI requests, but the more people that ask, the more likely they are to end the IPCC charade of secrecy and put the comments and responses online as they should be.
Comment by Steve McIntyre — June 21, 2007 @ 12:25 am
Re: #27
But, when you’re a high priest of your religion and are preaching from your church (IPCC), to cite anything that’ll question the religion is considered heresy and necessarily must be banned. Zealots aren’t rational.
Comment by John Baltutis — June 21, 2007 @ 1:16 am
Re: #22
Sorry, meant #21.
Comment by John Baltutis — June 21, 2007 @ 1:17 am
Nathan, You are obviously a newcomer to the “data” debate. Stupid?… no not stupid. Deliberate? Given the problems obtaining data from the likes of Jones, Mann, etc and the fact that the IPCC agenda is NOT to establish if AGW exists but merely “to what degree” of course it is deliberate. Spread the word Nathan, smell the coffee!
Comment by paul — June 21, 2007 @ 2:58 am
#21 “It’s strange that they would deliberately leave papers out, as it is such an obvious flaw in their process [...]I am just curious because such an obvious flaw seems unbelievable”
It is necessary to keep in mind that the process in question here is not that of a scientist but that of political body - in scientific clothing. Its processes are surely and obviously flawed from a scientific - but not political - viewpoint, and so what? When the scientific ‘flaws’ are discovered - but never admitted - perhaps years later, the agenda has moved on and the ‘flaws’ are not interesting any more.
Here’s an other unbelievable ‘flaw’ made by politicians in scientific clothes:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#more-1741
Comment by Niels — June 21, 2007 @ 6:43 am
Let’s try to resolve this issue by postulating an overly simplified thought exeriment.
We have 20 papers. 10 support the IPCC conclusion, 10 don’t.
Of these, the IPCC included 8 of the papers that support it’s conclusion, and none of the papers that don’t.
bigcitylib would have us believe that the fact that the IPCC ignored 2 of the papers that agree with it’s conclusions, justify it ignoring all 10 of the ones that don’t.
Comment by MarkW — June 21, 2007 @ 7:17 am
Hi
I’m based in London, England. Are there any readers of this blog that would consider taking part in a debate in London on the 10th July 2007 at 4:00 on the subject of CC generally or the specific issue of the weakness of the land based temperature measurements or divergence from satellite measurements. The audience will be about 150 drawn from the insurance industry and the two other speakers will be putting pro-AGW views.
I can be contacted at maynardpg@willis.com where I will explain more.
Regards
Paul
Comment by Paul Maynard — June 21, 2007 @ 8:45 am
All this “wake up and smell the coffee” talk is a little silly. It doesn’t mean anything. Claiming that someone is naive, which is fundamentally what you are doing, is still a very unconvincing argument. As are all the ‘zealot’ and ‘religion’ versions. They don’t demand thinking about. I am seriously asking why would anyone do something as dumb as just ignoring papers. what has the IPCC said regarding it’s referencing, and please if you THINK it’s “Nothing” then just don’t say anything. If you KNOW then please reply.
Comment by Nathan — June 21, 2007 @ 9:05 am
Steve M - Thanks for your suggestion.
I do not know how they can justify not releasing the comments and responses. This is yet another example of how the IPCC wants to limit (prevent) scientific debate.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 21, 2007 @ 9:39 am
29: “I am seriously asking why would anyone do something as dumb as just ignoring papers. what has the IPCC said regarding it’s referencing, and please if you THINK it’s “Nothingâ€? then just don’t say anything. If you KNOW then please reply.”
Just read a few posts at Climateaudit.org, and you will see a LOT more stupid science.
Comment by jae — June 21, 2007 @ 11:26 am
RE: The IPCC’s behavior - It is, oddly, and frighteningly, a bit authoritarian.
Comment by Steve Sadlov — June 21, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Re:#29 Nathan,
“I am seriously asking why would anyone do something as dumb as just ignoring papers. what has the IPCC said regarding it’s referencing, and please if you THINK it’s “Nothingâ€? then just don’t say anything.”
It seems to me that Roger has already asked this question and is postulating an answer by stating that it is a manifestation of the systemic bias in the IPCC process.
I do not know if the IPCC has been asked this question. I sincerely doubt that anyone has so how could the IPCC have responded. We may suspect what their answer might be given their history. In particular I am thinking of Castles et al and their questions pertaining to the IPCC’s economic forecasts which are the very foundation of the growth of greenhouse gases and thereby climate change as scenarioed.
Comment by Jeff Norman — June 21, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
bigcitylib — what you are missing is that IPCC not only wants to suppress opposing views, they want to suppress the idea that there’s even a significant discussion going on among different viewpoints.
Thus, to publish a paper supportive of their viewpoint, but that cites and argues against another viewpoint, is to admit that there is not a comprehensive consensus.
Thus, suppression is best accomplished by eliminating anything that even hints another viewpoint exists.
Comment by MrPete — June 21, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Nathan, if you read the IPCC procedures, you might be a bit surprised that it runs very contrary to what most here would consider science. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf
In section 4.2.4 “Review,” the IPCC clearly states that the IPCC reports include the latest “scientific, technical and socioeconomic findings” and are “comprehensive.” How does an organization maintain a claim of comprehensiveness, yet not include data that is contrary to the conclusions it states?
The procedure further describes a review process in which the final review is by “governments.” The seems a clear admission that this is a political rather than a scientific document. Seeing as how the IPCC is consistently held up as being representative a the scientific consensus, this seems at best dishonest.
Comment by Frank R — June 21, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
Re #35: The complete phrase from 4.2.4:
“First, the best possible scientific and technical advice should be included so that the IPCC Reports represent the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic findings and are as comprehensive as possible.”
A fair reading of that language is that material deemed to be wrong or irrelevant shouldn’t be included, and in fact that is just what the IPCC does. Proponents of said material just plain won’t be happy about this, as we can see. If they want such material to be included in the AR5, now would be a good time to start raising that with the WMO and UNEP governing bodies.
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 21, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Steve B. - So who selects the “gatekeepers” of the “… material [that is] deemed to be wrong or irrelevant”?
This is a recipe for bias, particularly when the material that is retained and emphasized is the “gatekeepers” own material.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 21, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Roger,
I point out these two papers. One (By Parker) suggests that the Heat Island effect is only during the calm nights and not on windy nights, like right if you live in the city and it is windy the temperature somehow changes. Thi might be true in small cities but ones like LA, NY and Mexico City they are large and spread out and you can get hotting (heat island effect) days and nights regardless of the wind. The other (By Peterson, Vose) has data about the 7000 temperature sites around the world. As I poin t out earlier (some how not posted) that a majority of the sites are land based and they are around mostly populated areas and only a few are located on islands, see page 2843 fig. #3, and it “appears” that none are taken at the ocean surface away from land. Thus if open ocean temperatures are taken would this eliminated the land use and heat island issues. What are your thoughts?
Peterson, T.C. and R.S. Vose, 1997: An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network temperature data base. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 2837-2849,
Parker, D.E., 2004: Large-scale warming is not urban. Nature, 432, 290, doi:10.1038/432290a;
Comment by Jim Arndt — June 21, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
PS sorry about the spelling
Comment by Jim Arndt — June 21, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
Jim - In answer to your question, the sea surface temperature data is a valuable and spatially representative temperature when sampled from satellite; e.g. see http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.6.21.2007.gif
For assessing, climate system heat changes (e.g. global warming), ocean heat content is the more appropriate metric, of course; see
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.
See also Ellis et al. 1978: The annual variation in the global heat balance of the Earth. J. Climate. 83, 1958-1962.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 21, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Roger,
In response to fairness and balance taken by the IPCC, I think it is difficult to judge what papers are used and others that are not used. Meaning that if the IPCC doesn’t release the names of the contributers and the raw data used to reject or confirm the “Global Warming Theory” then how are we to judge the process when we don’t even know who when where and what is used or discussed. I sorry if it is a bit wordy but my point is that they give us nothing to compare to. Just this is our findings take it or leave it.
Comment by Jim Arndt — June 21, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
Mr. Bloom,
Is it just by chance that only those papers included by the IPCC are correct and relevant? Odd that only those papers are so well researched and documented that they are the only ones included AND that they just happen to support the IPCC position.
Comment by Frank R — June 21, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
Well the IPCC should respond to the question why. All this speculation about deliberately ignoring and conspiracies to protect the new ‘religion’ etc don’t make convincing arguments. At least the IPCC had data to ignore, the conspiracy idea is idle speculation.
So if the IPCC process is flawed, how do people think this relates to AGW? What is the impact of a flawed IPCC on AGW? The sea surface temps look interesting. Maybe they will render the land surface temps irrelevant. And if those other three factors (the lower troposphere, upper troposphere and stratosphere temp trends) are real, then it doesn’t matter what the IPCC says, or ignores, or what we think of them.
Comment by Nathan — June 21, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
There are serious ways of doing citation analysis. Roger is not using any of them. To start why would anyone think that a list of papers found on a blog were representative of the literature on a subject? Blogs are personal, and things mentioned represent the interests of the author.
Rationally, Roger thinks well of his papers, there are four of them listed, none of which were cited in the AR4, Ch 3, although he did have one on the monsoon cited.
Comment by Eli Rabett — June 21, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
As far as I can see there are lists of authors on each chapter of the TAR and AR4. For Ch 3 of the AR4
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Kevin E. Trenberth (USA), Philip D. Jones (UK)
Lead Authors:
Peter Ambenje (Kenya), Roxana Bojariu (Romania), David Easterling (USA), Albert Klein Tank (Netherlands), David Parker (UK), Fatemeh Rahimzadeh (Iran), James A. Renwick (New Zealand), Matilde Rusticucci (Argentina), Brian Soden (USA), Panmao Zhai (China)
Contributing Authors:
R. Adler (USA), L. Alexander (UK, Australia, Ireland), H. Alexandersson (Sweden), R. Allan (UK), M.P. Baldwin (USA), M. Beniston (Switzerland), D. Bromwich (USA), I. Camilloni (Argentina), C. Cassou (France), D.R. Cayan (USA), E.K.M. Chang (USA), J. Christy (USA), A. Dai (USA), C. Deser (USA), N. Dotzek (Germany), J. Fasullo (USA), R. Fogt (USA), C. Folland (UK), P. Forster (UK), M. Free (USA), C. Frei (Switzerland), B. Gleason (USA), J. Grieser (Germany), P. Groisman (USA, Russian Federation), S. Gulev (Russian Federation), J. Hurrell (USA), M. Ishii (Japan), S. Josey (UK), P. KÃ¥llberg (ECMWF), J. Kennedy (UK), G. Kiladis (USA),
R. Kripalani (India), K. Kunkel (USA), C.-Y. Lam (China), J. Lanzante (USA), J. Lawrimore (USA), D. Levinson (USA), B. Liepert (USA), G. Marshall (UK), C. Mears (USA), P. Mote (USA), H. Nakamura (Japan), N. Nicholls (Australia), J. Norris (USA), T. Oki (Japan), F.R. Robertson (USA), K. Rosenlof (USA), F.H. Semazzi (USA), D. Shea (USA), J.M. Shepherd (USA), T.G. Shepherd (Canada), S. Sherwood (USA), P. Siegmund (Netherlands), I. Simmonds (Australia), A. Simmons (ECMWF, UK), C. Thorncroft (USA, UK),
P. Thorne (UK), S. Uppala (ECMWF), R. Vose (USA), B. Wang (USA), S. Warren (USA), R. Washington (UK, South Africa),
M. Wheeler (Australia), B. Wielicki (USA), T. Wong (USA), D. Wuertz (USA)
Review Editors:
Brian J. Hoskins (UK), Thomas R. Karl (USA), Bubu Jallow (The Gambia)
Comment by Eli Rabett — June 21, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
Nathan says “Well the IPCC should respond to the question why.”
The IPCC is a UN social construct. The same organization that put Zimbabwe in charge of sustainable development. Singled out Israel as the worlds only serious human rights abuser. Had Libya Chair the Human Rights Comission.
I’d say the UN-IPCC is acting in true United Nations fashion with regards AGW. AGW is a social construct.
Comment by Reid — June 21, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
Dear Editor, June 22/07
Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun’s output cause the observed changes in the
Earth’s temperature.
In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun’s output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun’s output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.
The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth’s
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
Ph. 807 3457258
Your readers might be interested in these websites.
Please paste these links in your browser.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.unikron.com/play/play_display.cgi?speed=hi&id=canadian_values_march1
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2007/04_26-32/LIF
Comment by Thomas Laprade — June 22, 2007 @ 2:22 am
Thomas, take a look at Damon and Laut in EOS for starters. EOS is the house journal of the American Geophysical Union, which is the scientific organization most concerned with figuring out climate (maybe a tie with the American Meteorological Society, won’t argue that one too hard)
Comment by Eli Rabett — June 22, 2007 @ 8:33 am
The question at hand is why the UN, a political organization of Byzantine nature, should be trusted to have a political process that should be trusted regarding scientific investigation?
Dr. Pielke asks a rational, scientist’s question as to why peer-reviewed studies that contradict the UN’s IPCC positions are ignored.
Is that kind of like asking the Pope why he ignores positions that contradict church orthodoxy?
Perhaps because they highlight an inconvenient truth? (sorry)
Comment by Bruce Hall — June 22, 2007 @ 10:20 am
Re: #38 - At most, wind will deform the dome of heat into a plume of it. The heat is what it is, the flux from the collection of sources is what it is, and no amount of wind can change that.
Comment by Steve Sadlov — June 22, 2007 @ 10:56 am
RE Thomas #47
I have read Svensmarks research and as far as I can understand he has shown that it is indeed a fact that high energy cosmic rays act as nuclei for cloud formation. This is an interesting develoment, but is still some way from linking this phenonmenum with actual cloud formation in a way that makes cosmic rays a significant forcing agent. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there is no mileage in this, but just that theres still some way to go. It could prove to be a major forcing agent, but at the moment we just don’t know. I believe some more experimental work is being planned for the large Hadron accelerator some time soon. I look forward to the results.
Comment by Vince Causey — June 22, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
#48 The response to Damon and Laut is here:
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications/comment%20to%20EOS_28_Sept_04.pdf.
Comment by Paul Biggs — June 22, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Vince -
The bottom line is that muons *do* ionize and create condensation nuclei, the question is only how much, and it’s only a slight modification that’s needed to affect albedo. The fact that this correlates with reality gives it one up on the “CO2 as primary forcing” theory drones…
Comment by Steve Hemphill — June 22, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
Nathan Re 43
More evidence that the IPCC is deliberately ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit its agenda. In the current issue of “Discovery” magazine Henrik Svensmark is interviewed. On page 48 the interviewer asks
“In 1996, when you reported that changes in the sun’s activity could explain most or all of the recent rise in Earth’s temperature, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernment Panel called your announcement “extremely naive and irresponsible.” How did you react?”
This quote is not proof positive of a political agenda by the IPCC, but it is more evidence.
Paul Briggs re 48
The link did not work
Bob
Comment by robert burns — June 22, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
Re #52: Which Eos apparently declined to publish. Wonder why?
Re #53: You really, really don’t want to understand this stuff! But here goes anyway:
The Milankovitch signal is incontrovertible in the ice cores. The effect of any solar changes is by definition too small to throw those cycles off. This isn’t especially controversial. What the Danes argue is that earlier in the last century what is thought to have been the beginnings of an anthropogenic GHG warming signal was really mainly solar. At the same time, they agree that the physics of GHG warming are valid. So, their view is that climate sensitivity to the GHG increases is relatively small, i.e., on the 1.4 degrees C low end of the IPCC range of sensitivity to doubled CO2.
What if they’re right? As Moberg pointed out at the end of a paper a few years ago, this isn’t really happy news. While it means that a solar signal could helpfully cancel much of the present GHG warming signal for some period of time (similar to what aerosols did mid-century), eventually the opposite must happen: An uptick of the solar influence will combine with the inexorable increase in the GHG signal to create a nasty global temperature spike with what seems likely to be very unpleasant consequences given the potential for ice-albedo and carbon feedbacks.
So in the end we come back to exactly the same rapid polar melting scenario that is a concern with GHG-only warming. Recalling that deep-time paleoclimate studies show that we live on a planet that seems to prefer to be ice-free, the transition to such a state may well be impossible to stop once it starts. Ironically, if the Danes are right about low GHG sensitivity our means of reversing or even much slowing the transition will be very limited.
And let’s not forget the oceans. The pace and effects of acidification are completely unaffected by CO2 climate sensitivity, while intermittent increased cloudiness won’t help things a bit.
The public policy implications of the foregoing should be obvious enough.
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 22, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Steve Bloom and Eli,
It doesn’t matter if the lead authors thought that Roger Pielke’s papers were wrong because their work disagrees with his or because Roger’s papers were written on blocks of cheese. The fact is that in performing a comprehensive review of the most recent peer-reviewed research on the topic, you can’t simply choose to ignore dozens of peer-reviewed papers on the topic that contradict your view without providing some discussion as to why they are not relevant. The IPCC WG1 report is intended to summarize the current research…not to summarize the view of said research held by a small group of co-authors. If they believe their paper is correct and Roger’s is wrong on a given topic in the chapter…then the proper thing to do in the WG1 report is to cite both papers, summarize both, and then discuss why one should be favored over the other. Simply ignoring them as if they were never written because you believe the other papers are correct totally misses the point of the WG1 report. Or at least the stated point.
Nathan, the IPCC report is not being written with a scientific audience in mind. It is being written for public consumption by media and politicians who will tell us morons in the public what it all means and how scared we should be. Therefore, they don’t expect that the media will dig deeply into whose paper was cited or which point of view was ignored. Their party line is that there are no other points of view…there is only consensus. They want us to accept at face value that IPCC WG1 report is the combined work of 2500 scientists and represents the consensus of science as we know it, with no contrary opinions, no doubts, no uncertainty, and no possibility of being incorrect. They want the public to believe that there is zero dispute on ANY of the science involved, so the chapter authors present one point of view in the chapter…papers that don’t conform to that point of view are ignored.
As a result of that attitude by IPCC, people like Steve M have requested a copy of the names of the 2500 scientists, the comments submitted by the reviewers, and the answers to the comments by the authors. IPCC is fighting tooth and nail to prevent publication of the comments and responses, because it would likely shatter the image of consensus among the 2500 scientists and would reveal that there is wide diversity of opinion on various topics that would greatly damage the “cause”.
I know that isn’t what you wanted to hear, but that is reality. Go read about the IPCC stalling Steve M and eventually giving him the comments but forbidding him from citing or disseminating the comments over at Climate Audit. They obviously have an electronic version of the comments available that they gave to him and could put it on their website with about 3 mouse clicks. But instead, they have shuttered it away in paper form at Harvard with an as yet unknown timeframe and policy on who will be able to review it and whether they will be able to copy it. Transparency is the hallmark of good science, and the IPCC has deliberately chosen over and over against to actively fight against transparency in their processes. Why? Well I will let you form your own opinions there…
Comment by Bill F — June 22, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
Re #37: Roger, you know how the co-chairs and lead authors get selected. Why are you asking me?
Re #56: “The IPCC WG1 report is intended to summarize the current research.” Wrong. See #36.
“(T)he IPCC report is not being written with a scientific audience in mind.” Wrong *again*. (Is this a trend?) Your statement is arguably correct for the SPMs and especially the synthesis report (although scientists use these plenty), but it is definitely not the case for the technical reports.
As for Steve M., to the extent that the IPCC or anyone else can throw sand in the gears of him or any other denialist shill, more power to them.
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 22, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
Bill, I was making a much more restricted argument, you cannot hold that the list of articles given by Roger is in any way representative of those in the field, they are merely the articles he is interested in. As I said it is possible to do a meaningful citation analysis, it is just that Roger has not done one.
Comment by Eli Rabett — June 23, 2007 @ 12:09 am
Re #57 “As for Steve M., to the extent that the IPCC or anyone else can throw sand in the gears of him or any other denialist shill, more power to them.”
These words by Bloom are extremely worrisome, do they perhaps illustrate some underlying disfunction or malais? Maybe it is all to do with trying to close down any debate, scientific or otherwise.
GeoffS
Comment by Geoff S — June 23, 2007 @ 5:02 am
Re #55
Is it not the case that Milankovich cycles move over time scales of 24,000 year up to 100,000’s? I thought so. This is one of the problems with Milankovich cycles in that they cannot explain the relatively rapid ending of the last ice age. And talkiing of ice age cycles, aren’t we due for another one imminently if patterns repeat? I’m not into coming ice age doomsaying, but you can’t have your cake and eat it.
On another point, if the temperature sensitivity to Co2 is smaller than the IPPC estimate, why is that unhappy news? If the climate has a high sensitivity to Co2 this is bad. If it has a low sensitivity it is bad as well.
Your comment on ocean acidification is a red herring (pun intended). The ph of the ocean is around 8.7, and predictions are for it to decrease to 8.5 or thereabouts. Still alkaline. Hardly acidic. A more honest appraisal would be something like ‘beware of a trend in reduction of ocean alkalinity’. But then that isn’t quite as potent a sound bite.
Comment by Vince Causey — June 23, 2007 @ 10:34 am
Re #57, You say:
“(T)he IPCC report is not being written with a scientific audience in mind.â€? Wrong *again*. (Is this a trend?) Your statement is arguably correct for the SPMs and especially the synthesis report (although scientists use these plenty), but it is definitely not the case for the technical reports.”
Steve B, once again you tip your hand. The IPCC report is most definitely *not* written with the appropriate scientific audience in mind. The fact you think so identifies your level of understanding of the science, as opposed to your ability to parrot the position of the Sierra Club.
I’m still waiting to hear how much education you’ve had in thermodynamics.
Comment by Steve Hemphill — June 23, 2007 @ 11:53 am
Eli - Regarding #58, perhaps this will convince you (or at least others):
The original
Kalnay E., and M. Cai, 2003a: Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate. Nature, 423, 528-531
resulted in vigorous comments on their conclusions, with two comments published in response in Nature;
Trenberth, K.E., 2004: Rural land-use change and climate. Nature, 427, 213, doi:10.1038/427213a. doi:10.1175/JCLI3612.1.
Vose, R.S., T.R. Karl, D.R. Easterling, C.N. Williams, and M.J. Menne, 2004: Impact of land-use change on climate. Nature, 427, 213-21
These three papers were reported on in the IPCC Report.
However, the Kalnay and colleagues Reply article which respond to the Trenberth and Vose et al Comments were not! This include the Cai and Kalnay Reply with appeared in the same Nature issue as the Trenberth and Vose et al Comments! (and I did not even include this Cai and Kalnay paper in the original weblog!).
These excluded papers are:
Kalnay, E. and M. Cai, 2003b: Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate - Corrigenda. Nature, 425, 102
Cai, Ming and Eugenia Kalnay: 2004 Climate (communication arising): Impact of land-use change on climateNature 427, 214 (15 January 2004) | doi:10.1038/427214a
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6971/abs/427214a.html
and
Kalnay, E., M. Cai, H. Li, and J. Tobin, 2006: Estimation of the impact of land-surface forcings on temperature trends in eastern United States J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 111, No. D6, D06106.
This clearly is ignoring inconvenient science!
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 23, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Re #62: Roger, simply combing through the citations is a poor substitute for a critical reading of the IPCC text. Your attacks on the AR4 WG1 scientific assessment absent any specific citations are becoming tiresome. One begins to suspect you may not have read it.
In this instance, I would wonder whether the Kalnay et al reply added any new material to their original paper. Generally such replies just defend the content of the original paper.
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 23, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
Re #60: “This is one of the problems with Milankovich cycles in that they cannot explain the relatively rapid ending of the last ice age.” Why in the world would you think that? There is nothing especially unusual about the pace of the last deglaciation. I think you need to read up on this stuff.
“And talkiing of ice age cycles, aren’t we due for another one imminently if patterns repeat?” Even absent anthropogenic influences, it would probably be at least another 10,000 years.
“If the climate has a high sensitivity to Co2 this is bad. If it has a low sensitivity it is bad as well.” Not neccesarily. My point was that if one uses argues that there has been a substantial solar effect recently, then CO2 sensitivity must be low, but then there will still be dangerous temperature spikes from the combined effects of solar and CO2. If instead CO2 sensitivity is high, a similar spike could be had from the same amount of CO2 alone. The practical difference between the two cases is that we’re in a much better position to do something about the latter (by reducing CO2 emissions).
Regarding acidification, the term is used relative to the pre-industrial state of the oceans. Bear in mind that a technically neutral pH would be fatal to much if not most of the life in the oceans. As far as I know, too low a pH will kill the herring before they change color.
Re #61: The full reports aren’t written for a scientific audience? Just out of curiosity, who do you think the respective intended audiences are for the full reports and the summaries?
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 23, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
Re #64 Steve B said:
Re #61: The full reports aren’t written for a scientific audience? Just out of curiosity, who do you think the respective intended audiences are for the full reports and the summaries?
People like you!
Comment by Steve Hemphill — June 23, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
Nathan’s concerns also troubled me for many years, until I read more on the history and development of science. While the scientific method dictates that we adhere to logical analysis and the incorporation of all legitimate data into the development of our hypothesis, our human nature compels us to adopt a paradigm and defend it beyond any reasonable measure.
Evidence that this is occurring in the AGW debate is found in the type of arguments used to defend the paradigm. The most obvious is the ad hominem attack, like blatantly calling someone a shill. Often the attacks are more subtle, like making unsubstantiated references to possible motives or guilt through (unproven) association. The truth is not important. It is only the allegation and how often it is repeated that matters.
The consensus argument is another sign that the paradigm is being supported by less than scientific reasoning.
Perhaps the most widely used technique by those who claim scientific understanding of AGW is the selective use of a logical argument. In this case the defenders use sound reasoning to question alternative ideas, but they refuse to apply the same logic to their own ideas. We see this again and again in the AGW debate.
In fact, Roger’s argument of a lack of comprehensiveness has been used many times by the likes of Steve B. and Eli to totally dismiss competing ideas that made no claim to comprehensiveness. Yet they do not accept identical arguments when directed against their own paradigm, which actually makes a claim of comprehensiveness.
The selective use of a logical argument is found in almost every critique of a skeptical viewpoint. Bill Gray was an idiot for suggesting ocean circulations had a major impact on climate because he could not explain the mechanism, but when questions of declining ocean heat content hit the scene, AGW supporters were quick to suggest ocean circulations as the reason for the observations, although they could not explain the mechanism.
AGW supporters claim the MWP was regional and not global, but if we apply the same observational techniques today, we find that the current warm period would seem just as regional and not global.
AGW supporters claim that anything less than a perfect one to one correspondence between solar forcing and temperature indicates that the sun is not the primary driver of recent climate change, yet the total lack of a one to one correspondence between CO2 and temperature change is ignored or defended with improvable speculations. This is a subset of selective logic known as the double standard. Eli made use of this technique in #48, when he used a forum article to attempt dismissal of a peer reviewed paper. Holders of the AGW Crisis paradigm would not even consider such behavior from AGW crisis skeptics. Only peer reviewed arguments are allowed.
All of these are examples of the irrational defense of a scientific paradigm. It is found throughout the history of scientific evolution. While many of us, including Nathan and me, would like to think that modern, rational scientists would not be susceptible to these irrational influences, the evidence indicates that the same behaviors are just as present today as they were in the past. It is a product or our human emotion and psychology. I suspect that for the vast majority it is not a diabolical plot or conspiracy.
Comment by Jim Clarke — June 24, 2007 @ 10:01 am
Swedish paleogeophysicist Nils-Axel Morner accuses IPCC scientists of falsifying data and destroying evidence.
http://newsbusters.org/node/13698#comment
Comment by Reid — June 24, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
I guess the best way to ’solve’ this dilemna would be to list, or summarise, what is in those ‘missing’ papers that the IPCC has ignored. What do they papers actually say?
Cheers
Nath
Comment by Nathan — June 24, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
Roger, I may be doing Kalnay and Cai a dis-service, but my general experience with replies to comments is that the editors first send the comment to the original authors. If the author’s reply is satisfactory (as judged by the editor and referees) they don’t publish the comment or the reply. Only in the case where the comment is much stronger than the reply will the comment be published, and the reply is allowed to stand as a courtesy. And yes, this has happened to me. So no, I don’t think you have convinced me.
As to ocean pH, it was more like 8.2, and is now 8.1. In a 2x CO2 world it will go to 7.9 or so, and yes, this is a problem, as anyone with a clue about buffering would know. For one thing, what will that do to the biological pump.
The best description about the coming ice age I ever heard was in 2000, describing it as the year 10K problem.
Comment by Eli Rabett — June 24, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
Nathan - I recommend reading the Executive Summary Findings of the 2005 NRC Report and in my Public Comment on the CCSP Report, and then see the inadequate reporting on most of these issues in the 2007 IPCC WG1 Report. I just summarized one of these issues in Part I.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 25, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Re #68: Nathan, one thing I’ve learned about this blog is that Roger doesn’t like to put things in perspective.
I don’t think anybody keeps track of the total number of papers that are published on climate, but the total is easily in excess of 20,000 (and possibly much more) for the six-year period between the deadlines for inclusion in the TAR and AR4. It is a very small percentage indeed that got cited. As for what they say, I’m a little short on time just now!
As for what they mean, see the AR4.
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 25, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
RE: #69 - Joshua, what is the expected range of ocean pH, what are, where are and how many are the measurement points, what is the determination method?
Comment by Steve Sadlov — June 25, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
Steve B. - Please specifically refer to papers and text in the 2007 IPCC WG1 Report that directly comment on the Findings in the Executive Summary of the 2005 NRC Report
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp.
Than you would be able to make your case.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 25, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Re #67: Perfect in every way! The unreferenced article turns out be based on an equally unreferenced interview for a LaRouche publication. Apparently Morner (now emeritus) had a legitimate academic record in an area unrelated to climate change or sea level, but late in his career acquired some more, um, diverse interests.
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 25, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Re #70/3: In #70 you wrote:
“(S)ee the inadequate reporting on most of these issues in the 2007 IPCC WG1 Report. I just summarized one of these issues in Part I.”
The problem is that you did no such thing. A general reference to chapter 3 isn’t useful. Is there some problem with quoting specific passages? I think you need to do that to make any kind of case. Asking me to do it for you is a little strange.
BTW, I don’t recall, but did you make a comment on the chapter 3 draft?
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 25, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Re #74 Steve Bloom,
Why don’t you provide the readers of Climate Science a link to the names of the 2,500 IPCC scientists so we can know who is qualified to have an opinion and who isn’t.
As usual you avoid debating science when it doesn’t support AGW alarmism.
Comment by Reid — June 25, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
Steve B. - Here is a research question that is not in the 2007 IPCC WG1 Report;
What is the relative forcing of atmospheric weather features due to human caused climate forcings?
We discuss this issue and present a climate metric to assess this effect in
Matsui, T., and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2006: Measurement-based estimation of the spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing. Geophys. Res. Letts., 33, L11813, doi:10.1029/2006GL025974
What is your perspective on the need for this type of climate metric?
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 25, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
Reid darling, the list of authors is found at the . That you do not know this shows the depth of your interest and expertise in this matter. Have at it.
Comment by Eli Rabett — June 26, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Eli Rabett says “Reid darling, the list of authors is found at the . That you do not know this shows the depth of your interest and expertise in this matter. Have at it.”
Eli, you have not provided a weblink. If this is so simple as you infer why have you not provided a link? Provide the readers of Climate Science an official IPCC weblink and make me look foolish. I you don’t after your ad hom comment you will be the fool.
I don’t claim climate science expertise. My depth of interest and expertise is enough to know when I’m being conned.
Comment by Reid — June 26, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Re #79: Reid darling (bunnies are *so* cuddly), the blue text made it obvious to everyone else that Eli did provide a link but screwed up the HTML somehow. But within the last two weeks or so he’s provided the same link on this very blog. You could search for that, or even (horrors) go to the IPCC site and look for it yourself.
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 26, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Re #77: I’ll have a chance to read it over more carefully this weekend, but at first glance it seems to not provide a useful metric for public use. As we’ve discussed in the past, that’s where the need lies.
But what about those quotes of the the AR4 text?
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 26, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
RE: “As to ocean pH, it was more like 8.2, and is now 8.1. In a 2x CO2 world it will go to 7.9 or so, and yes, this is a problem, as anyone with a clue about buffering would know. For one thing, what will that do to the biological pump.”
Well Eli aka Joshua ignored my high specific scientific question posed in #72, so I’ll go ahead and give the answer. The answer for the expected pH range is 7.7 - 8.3, at least is was as of my undergrad, upper division Geochemistry of Natural Waters and Marine Geology courses. And of course, if you really want to get technical, in sea water and brackish water at the extremes such as the Sea of Cortez, Red Sea, etc on the one hand and the Baltic on the other, values even outside of this range can be found. Another extenuating circumstance is found in the case of black smokers (the key area of specialization of one of my advisors back in “school daze”) where naturally, even more extreme values are possible. So here is Eli trying to wind people up about acidification based on a claim of pH going from a value near the upper end of the range to one slightly more in the middle. NNNNNNEEEEEEXT!
Comment by Steve Sadlov — June 26, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Another note, I’d challenge even the best Marine Geochemist to successfully, reliably and repeatably discriminate between pH values in collected seawater differing by a mere 0.1 delta pH. That would be one mean feat. Do a gage R and R on it and you’ll see why. Dashed another one to pieces! Huzzah!
Comment by Steve Sadlov — June 26, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
RE#83, Why bother trying to measure? You could just model!
Comment by Michael Jankowski — June 26, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Re #80 Steve Bloom says “Reid darling (bunnies are *so* cuddly), the blue text made it obvious to everyone else that Eli did provide a link but screwed up the HTML somehow.”
In other words, Eli hasn’t provided a link. Typical Team incompetence. Typical Team answer, the browser ate my homework. Next you will tell me the list is available in hard copy format at a Harvard library but only high priests such as yourselves can view it.
Try agaim Eli or Steve. I know it will be a great inconveinence for you to back up your assertion that the IPCC has released the name of the 2,500 consensus scientists.
Until you post the link you have been intellectually beaten by an amateur.
Comment by Reid — June 26, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
It looks as if the IPCC has relented and finally posted online the WG1 AR4 comments today.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html
I’m still waiting for that list Eli and Steve.
Comment by Reid — June 26, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
RE: #86 - There is a link at Climate Audit, and now, as a result, you can’t buy your way into CA. A good kind of problem to have, I reckon …. the hit meter must be redlining …
Comment by Steve Sadlov — June 26, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
Re #82: Wrong, and for obvious reasons.
Re #83/4: MJ, you should be aware that SS has a bad habit of just making stuff up. Don’t encourage him.
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 26, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Steve B. Re #88 be so kind as to expand on the “obvious reasons” because until you do all you have done is a lot of hand waving and again a ad hominem attack (MJ you should be aware that SB excels in such attacks).
Comment by Bob T. — June 26, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
#88 - for obvious reasons? I guess they are not so obvious to me, so you would probably call me a simpleton. Mind you I see no reference. There certainly is plenty on ocean acidification if you google “normal pH range ocean water” (and a couple of word variants), unfortunately there is not much of anything else.
#82 - Steve S, can you provide a reference for your range of ocean pH? I am curious about this and even historical pH ranges if available.
Comment by Rejean Gagnon — June 26, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
Wrong — And for obvious reasons.
I hope we don’t blindly follow anything. It would be interesting to find out if, *gasp*, the land surface temps are inflated due to faulty measurement locations, improperly tuned measurement devices, inaccurate models, or mixing proxy with direct measurements.
Or that the IPCC (or anyone else) had a political agenda. Oh, my!
Comment by Reginald Chauncy — June 26, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
Sorry for the botched link, but it does happen, however we can be explicit
go to http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Download any chapter, let us say chapter 3. If you have an Adobe Acrobat reader you will see a list of authors.
Frankly, where did this silliness start? The authors of each chapter have always been listed.
Comment by Eli Rabett — June 26, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
RE #88,
Do you have some specific examples of SS “just making stuff up”? I’m sure you do, as you wouldn’t be just slinging mud, would you?
Comment by Steve Hemphill — June 26, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
Re #86
Climate Science readers may be particularly interested to navigate to the first order draft comments for chapter 3, in particular:
Comment 3-355, page 48 of 274
Comment 3-452, page 61 of 274
Comment 3-1758, page 225 of 274
Astonishing responses!
Comment by Spence_UK — June 27, 2007 @ 8:17 am
Re #78,
Eli Rabett, it appears you can’t provide us with a link to the list of the 2,500 IPCC consensus scientists. You tried to pull a fast one but you have been caught dissembling and obfuscating. Instead of providing a link you attacked my intelligence. I’d say that if anyone on this thread has an intellectual deficit it is you and Steve Bloom.
Perhaps you were going to provide this link;
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_AuthorList_2005-11-03.pdf
It is the only list of scientists I could find on the IPCC website. But it only lists 170 scientists. Where is the list of 2,500 scientists we hear so much about from the IPCC, the media and politicians?
Here is an official IPCC flyer claiming 2,500 scientific reviewers;
http://www.ipcc.ch/IPCCflyer_lr.pdf
Who are they and why won’t the IPCC provide a list? Enquiring minds want to know.
Comment by Reid — June 27, 2007 @ 8:32 am
#94:
3-452, -453 and -454 are all rather telling actually.
Comment by Rejean Gagnon — June 27, 2007 @ 9:04 am
Re #92, Eli says “Frankly, where did this silliness start? The authors of each chapter have always been listed.”
I have counted the number of scientists your link provides and the number is 170. (providing there are no duplications in which case the number is less)
You haven’t provided a link to the 2,500 list because it is either classified or does not exist. You tried to bait and switch and have been caught by an amateur without credentials. OUCH!!!
Comment by Reid — June 27, 2007 @ 9:09 am
Re #89: Bob T., your child-like faith in Sadlov’s completely sourceless comment is touching. Of course there are places in the oceans that have variant pH levels. What we are concerned with are the extensive areas where most of the life is. On his point about scientists being unable to get an accurate read on pH changes, IMHO believing that is beyond merely child-like.
Comment by Steve Bloom — June 27, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Steve B. Again with the attacks and this time personal, how cute an child-like on your own part. I expressed no statement of faith or belief in what Mr. Sadlov wrote, I was merely requesting that you supply more than a ad hominem attack as part of your rebuttal, but sadly it appears that discussion with out innuendo is beyond you.
By the way thanks its been 55+ yrs since I was accused of being child-like, feels good
Comment by Bob T. — June 27, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
There appears to be a larger list of authors and reviewers at
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
They are in the annex section following a glosarry.
As to the link already provided to the reviewer comments, and responses, this is rich stuff…fascinating and illuminating material. Regardless of one’s outlook, this is a must read.
Comment by Richard Berler — June 27, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Re #100 Richard Berler says “There appears to be a larger list of authors and reviewers at
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
They are in the annex section following a glosarry.”
Annex III is a list of expert reviewers. I estimate that Annex III contains 500 to 600 names. That is based on 11 pages of 50 to 60 names per page. This is WAY short of the publicized 2,500+ scientific expert reviewers the UN-IPCC claims.
Put up the list UN-IPCC. The world is watching.
Eli and Steve, let’s face it, you can’t provide a link to a list of the 2,500+ expert reviewers.
And I didn’t see Joshua Corning or Steve Bloom listed in either the author list or expert reviewer list. You’d think these guys were experts.
Comment by Reid — June 27, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
A probable dumb question…the list of authors and reviewers were for working group 1. Is it possible that the remainder of the “mythic 2500″ reside in other working groups?
Comment by Richard Berler — June 27, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Re #102,
The UN-IPCC is now aware that their 2,500+ scientific expert reviewers claim does not match their archived records. It is up to them to justify their public relation numbers of 2,500 scientific expert reviewers, 800 contributing authors and 450 lead authors that their public relations materials tout. That’s 3,750 names that should be definitively listed. The IPCC has only identified 1/3 that many names. Either the IPCC releases the full 3,750 names or they should admit their public relations numbers are fabricated.
Comment by Reid — June 27, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
Reid, try it somewhere else. I pointed to one chapter in an eleven chapter Working Group report. That one chapter had >150 named authors. You could look at each chapter or do what Richard Berler recommended and go to the appendix. Appendix II has about 600 named authors. Appendix III has about 500-600 named reviewers for WGI. The WGII and WGIII reports have not yet been published. They will also list authors and reviewers. As a matter of fact, a bit of searching can locate the lead author lists for WGII and WGIII. Enjoy yourself
Multiplication is a useful skill. Each chapter has ~15 lead authors. There are >10 chapters in each working group report. There are 3 working groups. ~450 lead authors is what you get. There are 2-3 times as many contributing authors as lead authors.
Comment by Eli Rabett — June 27, 2007 @ 10:41 pm
#104,
Eli, don’t take lessons from someone else on this blog who uses nothing but ad hominem attacks and arrogant arguments. I think you have something useful to say, although I often disagree with your opinion. I do believe that this business of an author list is not worth debating right now - the numbers likely do match closely the PR campaign (and someone can check this out if they wish when the other two WGs are out. Meanwhile, wait out.
On the other Q of whether all of the authors/reviewers/editors listed agree with the so-called consensus is quite another matter. We have already seen that Dr Vincent Gray for one had some strong comments as a reviewer, many of which were rejected.
Comment by Rejean Gagnon — June 28, 2007 @ 9:08 am
Re #104,
Eli, you are engaging in bait and switch again. I originally claimed a list of the 2,500 scientific expert reviewers was not publicly available. You then belittled my intelligence and claimed the names were available. I challenged you to provide a link to the names. All you have done is switched the subject from the 2,500 expert reviewers to the 1,250 authors. It is now clear that you were wrong and can’t provide a list. I don’t expect you to admit that you were wrong. What’s the first rule of Team Club? Never admit you are wrong.
Today, as we comment, the names of the iconic 2,500 scientists that the IPCC, the media, politicians and popular culture loudly proclaim are classified.
Comment by Reid — June 28, 2007 @ 11:39 am
So Bob T has been shot down for taking at face value the words of another poster - Steve Sadlov in this case - someone, we are told, who is well known for “making stuff up.” What exactly are these fantasies Sadlov is having?
In statment 82 Sadlov states that the expected pH range of seawater is 7.7 to 8.3. A quick google search took me to wikipedia where I read that sea water pH is limited to 7.5 to 8.4. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater.
And from the paper ‘Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide’ by Caldeira, one reads that “. . average pH of about 8.2 + or - 0.3 units”.
He also challenged anyone to measure pH to within a delta of 0.1. In wikipedia again we find the following “In chemical oceanography pH measurement is complicated by the chemical properties of seawater, and several distinct pH scales exist[11]” and “In practical terms, the three seawater pH scales differ in their values by up to 0.12 pH units[11]. . .”
For someone who makes stuff up, this is pretty close to what he claimed in the first place. Or maybe he just go lucky.
Comment by Vince Causey — June 28, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
#107:
Thanks for that, quite illuminating. The actual link is here, but I found it easily enough from what you gave:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH#Seawater
Steve, it would appear that chemistry is not high on your list of expertise. I am actually dangerously knowledgeable on the subject, but did not know this level of detail.
Comment by Rejean Gagnon — June 28, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Reid, the list of reviewers for WGII and WGII is not yet available because the final reports are not yet available. Your sticking your fingers up your noise and shouting that they are being hidden only makes you look foolish. From what is publicly available (lead authors for WG I II and III, contributing authors and reviewers from WGI) the numbers check out.
En passant it occurs to me where the number for reviewers came from. When IPCC made the drafts available for review, they had to be downloaded from various national sites, to download you had to register. I suspect that the names of reviewers published in the reports will reflect those who actually submitted comments. Mke of it what you will.
Rejean, point out to me, if you will, where Gray said anything that was other than his opinion. I read through all the Ch3 corrections, and believe me, all he was was contentious.
I did note that Roger had not offered comments, toujour gai. As to my somewhat different mode of replies to different posters here, you might gain some insight from this essay
PS Roger, please drop the term weblog, it grates in my ears like nails on a blackboard.
Comment by Eli Rabett — June 29, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Eli - I did submit a comment about the organization of the WG1 report, but have not yet checked to see how they responded.
In terms of counting the “reviewers”, a tabulation, in any case, hardly means that all of these individuals agree with the report.
On “weblog” please suggest another term.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — June 29, 2007 @ 11:55 am
I’m not sure in which section they would answer such a comment, anyhow, Reid was not asking for whether the reviewers agreed or disagreed, just who they were. I suspect the number who actually submitted comments will be of the order of 1800-2100. Lots of folk like me downloaded the material and read it, but may not necessarily have had any comment to make. This raises the interesting point of whether the downloaders who did not submit a comment should be identified. I think not
As to replacements for weblog, essay, post, article. . .
Comment by Eli Rabett — June 29, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Eli Rabett says “I suspect the number who actually submitted comments will be of the order of 1800-2100.”
Now we are getting to thrust of my obsession with the 2,500 scientists. The actual number is more like 1,800 and of those only 600 in my estimation would agree with the IPCC conclusions.
So we are told there is a consensus but only 1 in 3 IPCC scientific expert reviewers agree with that consensus. Hence the Soviet-style IPCC handling of the scientists names and their commentary.
Comment by Reid — June 29, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
Of the more than 2500 people who downloaded the various drafts, 1800-2100 will have submitted comments. Most of the comments are on technical matters (and, of course, we have Ross McKitrick and Vincent Gray). In other words, Reid, you are erecting strawmen here.
Comment by Eli Rabett — June 30, 2007 @ 10:47 am
Eli Rabett says “In other words, Reid, you are erecting strawmen here.”
I am making a hypothesis. Based on an unscientific sampling of the recently released WG1 archive, I hypothesize that only 600 or about 1 in 4 of the expert reviewers endorse without reservation or qualification the UN-IPCC 4AR scientific reports. In other words I hypothesize there is no scientific consensus and an analysis of the 4AR archives will prove this beyond a doubt.
Since this hypothesis cannot be tested until all the expert reviewers names and commentary are declassified I am signing off on this thread. I’ll be back! When the UN-IPCC declassifies more 4AR material.
Comment by Reid — June 30, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Dear Dr Pielke,
I came across your website (Climate Science) and was interested in comments you have made about the recent IPCC reports and the failure to consider local, regional warming / climate trends etc. I have started to look at British Met Office data in a part of mid Wales, UK (weather station at Aberporth). Data and analysis so far are included in the attachment above. I have concentrated on the mid season months of January, April, July and October only to increase the resolution of the differences between the seasons. The analysis so far suggests that there has been a warming (around 0.9 degrees Celsius) in mid-summer and mid winter between 1942 and 2006 in this part of Wales (roughly in accord with the annual, mean global increase). Surprisingly, however, spring-time temperatures have DECREASED by approximately the same amount at the same monitoring location over the same period of time (summarised in the table below). All of these temperature changes seem to be following an underlying linear trend (though some of the best fits currently displayed may be improved and uncertainty bars have not been calculated yet). As expected, there is no indication of run away temperature increases in this data at this time. It appears, however, that there are subtle changes and variations occurring here at the local, regional level that are being blurred / missed by the focus on mean annual global change (on which most of the discussion on global warming / climate change seems to be currently concentrated). These temperature changes in mid-Wales (increases and decreases at various times of the year) seem to have been influencing rain fall patterns in different ways at various times of the year (see attachment again for rainfall trends and table below). Total sunshine hours, particularly in the mid - winter and spring-time months, also seem to affected. That is, the local climate has in-fact been slowly changing over the last sixty or so years in this part of mid-Wales (summarised in the table below)! A linear extrapolation of current trends (see attachment) suggests that by the end of the century mean mid winter and mid spring Tmax temperatures (months of January and April respectively) in this part of mid Wales could be very similar at around 9 degrees Celsius (that is the winter and spring seasons are slowly merging). It is impossible to say, of course, if these changes are the result of natural climatic variation or have a man-made (green-house gas) origin.
Link for original data / analysis so far:
http://www.aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageByTitle&pageTitle=Evidence_for_Climate_Change_in_Mid_Wales,_UK
Comment by Gareth Evans — July 2, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Quote from IPCC 4AR:
The energy that is not reflected back to space [JdL: incoming energy from the sun] is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. This amount is approximately 240 Watts per square metre (W m–2). To balance the incoming energy, the Earth itself must radiate, on average, the same amount of energy back to space. The Earth does this by emitting outgoing longwave radiation. Everything on Earth emits longwave radiation continuously. That is the heat energy one feels radiating out from a fire; the warmer an object, the more heat energy it radiates.
To emit 240 W m–2, a surface would have to have a temperature of around –19°C. This is much colder than the conditions that actually exist at the Earth’s surface (the global mean surface temperature is about 14°C). Instead, the necessary –19°C is found at an altitude about 5 km above the surface. The reason the Earth’s surface is this warm is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the surface. This blanketing is known as the natural greenhouse effect. The most important greenhouse gases are water vapor and carbon dioxide.