http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/17/another-example-of-clear-failure-of-ipcc-models-to-predict-reality-in-the-ar5-draft/

Maybe we don’t need to shoot our cows after all.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/a-rebuttal-to-steven-sherwood-and-the-solar-forcing-pundits-of-the-ipcc-ar5-draft-leak/#more-75494

Quick scan of the sea level section should mean that a number of Councils can pull back on some of their plans.

Bill had the temerity to claim that DF didn’t know the first thing about political campaigning, whilst seemingly losing sight of the fact that it is not the job of a scientist to be a political activist

I think climate change is a very serious problem, and I think the biophysical impacts we would experience at (say) 4C would clearly be very disruptive to many societies. And I believe climate policy is necessary to make sure warming doesn’t get that high. I’d have thought both of these were obvious.
It’s an obvious fact that there is a range of expert opinion on climate change – it ranges from the very alarmed to the comparatively optimistic. I think that spread has value, and I think any responsible portrayal of climate change builds that spread in (since it, too, is a component of risk).

http://hot-topic.co.nz/stuff-and-nonsense-ministerial-condescension-and-media-fossil-fools/#comment-35946

# # #

Not what I’d describe as middle-of-the-road even though he acknowledges the range of expert opinion. Meanwhile Dave didn’t show up at JN which was a pity because it would have made an interesting discussion if he had addressed criticism of F&S12. I linked to HT in case someone wanted to take him to task directly but no-one from JN did. That was second last comment, interest was immediately diverted once the AR5 leak got going.

The issue remains though – models vs observations. Modelers (those whose simulations are rubbish) have a case to answer (why is your simulation rubbish?) and climate scientists, modelers and statisticians should have all the answers when they advance papers that appear to justify ensemble averages (what a crock) because it is inevitable that those papers will be dissected remorselessly.

The issue can be simplified simply by discarding all previous work (we now have CMIP5, why look at FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4?) and further discarding any run that doesn’t mimic the 21st century inflexion in GAT. That leaves only about 4 model configurations to scrutinize and the questions to ask are: firstly a) are those model configurations right for valid reasons? and b) will the configurations passing a) stand the test of time where all real drivers take effect irrespective of IPCC consideration?

b) will probably be answered between now and next model intercomparison (CMIP6).

andyS December 15, 2012 at 9:02 pm

Thomas,
If you think the IPCC is being unduly conservative… [off topic]

andyS December 16, 2012 at 8:53 am

So science is now off topic?

Gareth December 16, 2012 at 9:22 am

Nope. Attempting to change the subject is. And there’s very little at µWatts that bears any resemblance to science…

andyS December 16, 2012 at 9:51 am

The graph I presented was from the iPCC.

Gareth December 16, 2012 at 10:24 am

No. It was from a draft, so not final. And being wildly misinterpreted. Enough, please.

# # #

Might have touched a raw nerve there Andy.

I’m not surprised that climate scientists don’t want to engage in blog discussions

New global water vapor findings contradict second draft of IPCC Assessment Report 5 (AR5)

Guest post by Forrest M. Mims III

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/

Ap Index, Neutrons and Climate. Guest post by David Archibald

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/21/ap-index-neutrons-and-climate/

Figure 3: Neutron Counts over Solar Cycles 20 [1964] to 24

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/image_thumb25.png?w=966&h=633