Comments on: Will release of AR5 draft help IPCC make good?

By: val majkus

val majkus — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:20:17 +0000

here’s one of those pesky people distorting the science of climate change – one of the many official “expert reviewers” of the UN-IPCC
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/climate_science_vs_politics_the_road_ahead.html
(a bit of cut and paste)
In AR5, this comparison involves just one graph in a chapter on “Attribution.” Yet the IPCC studiously avoids discussing the several striking examples where observations disagree with climate models: no global warming during at least the past decade — in spite of rapidly rising CO2 levels; Antarctic is cooling — not warming; absence of the model-predicted “hot spot” in the tropical atmosphere, and others.
and

There is good news and bad news about climate. The good news is that science evidence has made it quite clear that the human contribution to a possible global warming is minor; in fact it cannot even be identified in the data record. The bad news is that the media and politicians pay no attention whatsoever to the science

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics.

Not a climate scientist then

And relevant to NZ he has some interesting things to say about the EPA Endangerment Finding – that finding was challenged and, In June 2012, the Court’s 3-judge panel ruled in favor of the EPA; it said in essence “we’re not scientists, we cannot decide between EPA’s scientific claims and those of the plaintiff, and therefore we give deference to the administrative agency’

By: Earthling (Spain)

Earthling (Spain) — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:15:49 +0000

Draft AR5 errors are currently being corrected by many different websites all over the internet.
All Pach needs to do, is hire a few bods to scour the web and note the corrections.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:24:27 +0000

Harry,

You say:

You don’t forgive a criminal still in the middle of his crime.

I must agree. However Prof Curry was holding out the possibility of the IPCC finishing their duties properly, and not sweeping the contentious issues “under the carpet” as they have done previously. If they do that, the world gets a climate analysis worth our scrutiny. That’s my aim. What’s yours?

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:19:23 +0000

Harry,

You say:

These self-admissions by the IPCC should be understood, by honest people, as an admission of guilt, and an admission that their science is a failure.

What are the admissions and where are they?

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:47:18 +0000

There is something slightly tragic about discussing climate issues on Christmas Eve, even by my low standards.

So I wish everyone a very happy Christmas and let Fenbeagle provide the mirth

http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/22/we-see-things/

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:27:36 +0000

A comforting thought is that the climate will tell us with certainty (not “virtual”) over the coming 3 – 5 years whether a 6th Assessment report is required or not.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:26:46 +0000

Shameless. Donna’s doing some great work.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:21:19 +0000

Should be “(and papers that don’t [or support an alternative case] get a mention too)”

Apparently Monckton has compiled a list of about 450 of those that didn’t.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:10:35 +0000

>”The IPCC leaders need only stop selecting scientific papers that suit their case…..”

I’m OK with that as long as the papers are fully represented when say one aspect of a paper is selected to support a case (and papers that don’t (or support an alternative case) get a mention too). Agee 2012 wrt GCR trend is a case in point. Agee’s repeated statements of the uncertainty in cloud datasets possibly being insufficient to identify trend was ignored but GCR was summarily dismissed anyway.

Made-to-order journal articles are a no-no too:-

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/12/20/this-is-called-cheating-part-1/

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:43:39 +0000

We’ve had Nic Lewis’s calculation of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (using the IPCCs own figures and methodology) at 1.75 degrees C.

Of course, many will disagree with the methodology, but what Nic Lewis has done is in the true spirit of science, I believe.

Yet what do you think the IPCC will do with their estimates? Do you think they will adjust their models? Will they publish the various graphs that appear in the SOD that show that models have failed to predict either warming or the methane levels (of particular significance to NZ)?

I don’t hold out much hope for “reform” of the IPCC anymore than I hold out hope for reform of the EU.