By Richard Black.
This is a fine opportunity for WUWT readers to make comments to the committee reviewing the IPCC. My suggestion: be polite; be constructive.
“Now that we’re in the kitchen, we have to take the heat,” said Rajendra Pachauri.
“And we have to recognize that the stakes are very high. So we have to prepare ourselves for criticism, and this is not something we have done in the past.”
Indeed not. The worlds of climate science and politics were very different in 1988 when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the organization that Dr Pachauri now chairs, came into being.
Concern there was about the potential of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions to produce a net warming of the planet’s biosphere, which was why the organization came into existence.
But computers on which scientists ran models were mere calculators beside today’s petaflop behemoths;
and many of the observation systems that now provide valued data, such as the global flotilla ofArgo floats, were barely at the stage of conception, never mind in their infancy.
As a result, the risk of warming might have been perceived as real, but it also went unquantified.
And as a result of that, there was barely a prospect of painful greenhouse gas emission cuts, never mind the wholesale decarbonisation of economies within a few decades that many now advocate.
Fossil fuel lobbyists had barely begun to organize, and a webless world did not facilitate the instant fractious exchanges of angry words and equations – the game, sometimes played on astroturf, that now makes the climate blogosphere as relentless as Shinjuku station in rush hour.
Read the rest of the story here
Comments to the IPCC review here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is time to bring out real auditors. See what data has been assisted. Then to see why they would need to change the data.
There is a common thread to all of this.
We will have a review and what happens? Well the review will find that the organisation is completely exonerated and is working to best practice and giving value for money. However there is a problem with communication and the organisation needs to get its message across.
See: InterAcademy Council Review of IPCC
Note particularly:
See: Questionnaire on IPCC Processes and Procedures:
They asked for it. Let them have it – BY JULY 1.
All your comments will be published – without names.
The IPCC was created to address the perceived problem of detrimental climate change. This isn’t the same thing as a comprehensive baseline descriptive analysis of the variability of climate. The first is motivated by a political agenda; the second by scientific curiosity. The two were conflated by the participants and they should be separated if we are to have an honest representation of any risks that need to be addressed. The very first thing any review must do is set out the agenda, the mission, the guiding philosophy, and the criteria for analysis and decision making that both advocates and critics of AWG can agree on. As we have seen with the IPCC reports, a shaky foundation inevitably leads to an unstable house.
See the context: Review Committee Statement of Task
Comment for Richard Black: Rose colored glasses much?
Stacey says:
June 10, 2010 at 5:22 am
There is a common thread to all of this.
We will have a review and what happens? Well the review will find that the organisation is completely exonerated and is working to best practice and giving value for money. However there is a problem with communication and the organisation needs to get its message across.
When was the last time a ‘self-policed’ agency of government actually arrested itself?
Dear professor Pachauri:
Why does the United Nations has two divergent opinions on future temperatures?
Paper by FAO:
Klyashtorin, L.B.
Climate change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches: the possibility of
forecasting.
FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 410. Rome, FAO. 2001. 86p.
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e00.pdf
Specially see graphs on page 50th, where it says we currently are in a DOWWARD temperatures curve, which will reach its lowest level in the year 2020:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf
And, how do you explain that CO2 goes AFTER not before increase in temperatures?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/
That you can personally check by holding a CO2 containing beverage in your hand, the hotter it gets the more CO2 will go out when you open it.
How do you explain, to the people of the world, that the following it is not true?:
CO2 follows temperature, not the other way. Open a coke and you´ll see it: The more you have it in your warm hand the more gas will go out when you open it.
CO2 is the transparent gas we all exhale (SOOT is black=Carbon dust) and plants breath with delight, to give us back what they exhale instead= Oxygen we breath in.
CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038% of it.
There is no such a thing as “greenhouse effect”, “greenhouse gases are gases IN a greenhouse”, where heated gases are trapped and relatively isolated not to lose its heat so rapidly. If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 “like the window panes in a greenhouse”, but…the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.
See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28018819/Greenhouse-Niels-Bohr
CO2 is a gas essential to life. All carbohydrates are made of it. The sugar you eat, the bread you have eaten in your breakfast this morning, even the jeans you wear (these are made from 100% cotton, a polymer of glucose, made of CO2…you didn´t know it, did you?)
You and I, we are made of CARBON and WATER.
CO2 is heavier than Air, so it can not go up, up and away to cover the earth.
The atmosphere, the air can not hold heat, its volumetric heat capacity, per cubic cemtimeter is 0.00192 joules, while water is 4.186, i.e., 3227 times.
This is the reason why people used hot water bottles to warm their feet and not hot air bottles.
Global Warmers models (a la Hansen) expected a kind of heated CO2 piggy bank to form in the tropical atmosphere, it never happened simply because it can not.
If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth.
So, if no CO2 NO YOU!
Last but not the Least:
If YOU and YOUR BOSSES succeed, and YOU FORCEFULLY WILL, YOU will reach your goal: A few companies, a few people, will own all the means of production of the world. But let us think: What then?, What for?, Will they become inmortal?, for to look for such a power, for to wish for such an inexhaustible wealth and endless resources one should have to be inmortal.
Then, inmortality should be the supreme goal for any living being, to overcome entropy by reaching every time a higher energy level, a higher frequency and a corresponding lower density as to “vibrate” for ever, almost like light itself. Then alchemical transmutation of inner energies should be our supreme goal and not that mounstrous want for acquiring power and money; that´s crazy and it leads only to degeneration of the succesive generations. It is frankly incomprehensible, so, instead of fighting against them, let us encourage them to attain their walhalah, their golden garden of eden, full of cancer, drugaddiction, of bleeding and wormful ulcers. That is what they are after:The ultra-maximum entropy. Hurray for YOU professor!
The IPCC will take unsupported assertions from Mann, his gcooked data and the WWF. Here is the University of Virginia famous student run honor code.
Mann laughs at it. He is above investigation.
“Students at the University have pledged themselves not to lie, cheat, or steal. This personal commitment to ethical, responsible behavior is the foundation for our student-run Honor System.”
http://www.virginia.edu/honor/
Where is Pachauri’s honor code? Will take kickbacks for influence?
I suspect he is running for a cover up.
IPCC capacity for logical consideration and understanding the climate change issues is well demonstrated in FAQ 1.2 (WG1-2007, p. 96: ‘What is the Relationship between Climate Change and Weather?’ expressed by the sentence:
____“A common confusion between weather and climate arises when scientists are asked how they can predict climate 50 years from now when they cannot predict the weather a few weeks from now.”
Although the FAQ 1.2 starts with the sentence that
___”Climate is generally defined as average weather, and as such, climate change and weather are intertwined”, whereon the explanation continues by saying::
____“As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialized countries is about 75. “
In contrast to the life expectation of the human beings, the life-span of “climate” is, according IPCC, WMO, and others:
___”Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years”.
Is it reasonable to ask IPCC whether climate can die, or is the analogy silly? About the unscientific term “climate” see : http://www.whatisclimate.com/
The Glossary of the American Meteorological Society shows what goes wrong when claiming that weather and climate are different issues when saying about “weather”:
· The “present weather” table consists of 100 possible conditions,
· with 10 possibilities for “past weather”, while
· popularly, weather is thought of in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind.
Interesting, that there seems – scientifically speaking – big, or small weather around. Take 99 items from the present weather, and you may regard that any future weather which consistent of one weather item as: CLIMATE;
hoping that this consideration falls in the category: polite and constructive.
Enneagram says: ” If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 “like the window panes in a greenhouse”, but…the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.”
You can’t be serious. The absorption of radiation depends on the absorptivity coefficient of each particular type of molecule. Trace gases like CO2 or CH4 or N2O can and do absorb significant amounts of outgoing thermal radiation.
Please read up on basic chemistry, starting with the Beer-Lambert Law
Concern there was about the potential of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions to produce a net warming of the planet’s biosphere
Like Yoda he writes.
I have posted my reassessment of CET data 1700-1990
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GWDa.htm
(the world’s longest temperature record available, which shows a negligible temperature trend increase).
Fossil fuel lobbyists had barely begun to organize,
What? I would bet they are outnumbered 100:1 in both funding and personnel by the climate change lobby.
O/T
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/06/09/nasa-arctic-mission.html
“NASA is launching a mission from Alaska next month, but it won’t be into space.
The agency will take to the sea June 15 from Dutch Harbor in the Aleutians on its first dedicated oceanographic field campaign.
The voyage is billed as an up close look at how conditions in the Arctic are affecting ocean chemistry and ecosystems that play a critical role in global climate change.
More than 40 scientists will spend five weeks on board the Coast Guard Cutter Healy, the most technologically advanced polar icebreaker in the U.S. The Seattle-based Healy provides more than 390 square metres of scientific laboratory space.”
I expect that they will chop up the ice as needed to allow the wind and the currents to carry it out to warmer water.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/06/09/nasa-arctic-mission.html#ixzz0qSTLBqlx
Here is what I sent them on their website asking for input last week.
“People have lost all trust in the IPCC process.
The temperature records have been manipulated (GISS for example) adding adjustments to old data to make the past look cooler, and to recent data to make new data look warmer. This falsely creates a trend.
Climate gate e-mails showed how a small group of IPCC contributors kept articles out of journals and tried to manipulate the peer review process.
The errors in the IPCC 4 report were relatively minor, but what are the chances that they all are to the warming side. If these errors were random one would expect some toward warming, some towards cooling. But all were to the warming side. This indicates a bias.
The only way to restore credibility is to have the review include the notable skeptics such as Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Timothy Ball, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Pielke Sr., Dr. Bob Carter, Dr. Christopher Landsea, Dr. Axel Morner from Sweden, Anthony Watts, and Steve McIntyre. There are others, I am sure you know their names, the ones excluded in the past, or that have quit the IPCC in disgust with the process.
Without a thorough examination by critics, the “review” will be a joke like the whitewash Oxburgh Inquiry in the UK.
Include the skeptics (NO, the science is not settled, there is NO consensus) and the critics or the review will be without merit.”
reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net
The IAC Committee have announced a public hearing in Montreal on 15 June and are flying in Bob Watson and Hans von Storch, but have not invited Steve McIntyre or Ross McKitrick. I have suggested they should.
I sent a submission to the IAC after listening to the last public hearing and have just sent a copy of the submission which I had sent to the Russell Review (ICCER) at the UEA. Russell has declined to publish it on the Review website on legal advice and has also decided not consider IPCC procedures – even thought that is largely what Climategate is about. If anyone wishes to have a confidential copy of either or both submissions and will agree not to publish either, you can email me at crusub@ur momisugly(the biggest uk supermarket).net. For those that can’t figure it – tesco.
It may not do much good but the more, that press the ICA to listen to a few critics, the better.
When will people realise that the only purpose of “Quality Management” and “Quality Reviewing” is to ensure that if cr*p is the end product, then it is consistent cr*p and nothing more. I have yet to see a QA system that actually improves the end product in any system – and I have been on Quality Audits and even been a Quality Auditor. The systems simply are not designed to improve anything, only to keep it always the same.
Why not just ask a simple question … Does Al Gore’s warm CO2 blanket exist? If yes, can you prove it?
It would probably be too much to ask why they think Stefan-Boltzmann theory doesn’t apply?
Owen says:
June 10, 2010 at 6:42 am
The air (the atmosphere with all its compounds taken together) has a volumetric heat capacity, per cubic cemtimeter is 0.00192 joules. How in the world, the earth not being a “closed system” and then not a closed pot, will ever “save” all that heat you are dreaming of.?
It should be made clear that many people believe the policy is well in advance of the science, and as a result there is a sincere desire to ensure that policy is both effective and cost-effective.
vukcevic says:
June 10, 2010 at 6:46 am
In your graphs are clearly shown the two peaks which correspond to the 1925 and 1999 big El Ninos. (Both were devastating for the northern west peruvian provinces-where precisely this phenomenon was named as such by local fishermen-).
Typo: it should read 1998 instead of 1999.
Reading the comments on Richard Black’s BBC blog I am surprised by the number of critical comments of the IPCC. They seem to be in the majority. Maybe I need to scroll down more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/ipcc_review_friend_or_foe.html
What fossil fuel lobbyists? Who are they and where are they? Why and how does this myth persist? If they do exist, in what way have they contributed or altered the CAGW discussion?