Sign-up now open for expert review of AR5 (second order draft)

AR5 - lost in the desert

The second order draft of the next IPCC report will be open for expert and government review from October 5th to November 30th. Sign-up to participate is already open. The application is online at:

https://sod.ipcc.unibe.ch/registration/

I’ll be signing up because I want to see if the second order draft has been modified in response to my thorough documentation of omitted variable fraud in the first order draft (“Vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5“).

The application is simple. It just asks for publications (I cite the blog posts I have written on my area of interest), and a brief statement of expertise (they don’t warn you, but this gets truncated at 750 characters).

Not sure if there is a sign-up deadline other than the closing of the comment window at the end of November. They only say that passwords will be sent out on October 5th. Could be you have to sign up before that. Good luck.

About these ads
This entry was posted in IPCC and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Sign-up now open for expert review of AR5 (second order draft)

  1. daveburton says:

    > REGISTRATION AS EXPERT REVIEWER CONFIRMED
    > Your confirmation number is: 309

  2. William McClenney says:

    I got the following when I tried to follow the link:

    This Connection is Untrusted

    You have asked Firefox to connect
    securely to sod.ipcc.unibe.ch, but we can’t confirm that your connection is secure.
    Normally, when you try to connect securely,
    sites will present trusted identification to prove that you are
    going to the right place. However, this site’s identity can’t be verified.

    What Should I Do?

    If you usually connect to
    this site without problems, this error could mean that someone is
    trying to impersonate the site, and you shouldn’t continue.

  3. RockyRoad says:

    Why do they put “Lost in the desert” on the front of their document? Is that an implication of where they’re at, or where they want reviewers to be? It gives me no assurance that the results will be worth reading.

  4. Taliesyn says:

    I think it is interesting that you must confirm this:

    >> I declare that I have scientific expertise in one or more areas relevant
    >> to the WGI contribution to AR5 and am therefore qualified to serve as
    >> an Expert Reviewer on the chapter(s) indicated.

  5. William McClenney says:

    Problem solved. I had to use IE to visit the site.

    Registration AS EXPERT REVIEWER Confirmed
    Your confirmation number is: 336

  6. 0U812 says:

    [I am sorry, we can't post that as is. Please try again. ~dbs, mod.]

  7. Alec Rawls says:

    The “lost in the desert” phrase is my addition to the original IPCC image (click the image for the original source). Hey, glad somebody noticed my little joke!

  8. jorgekafkazar says:

    Love the eddress.

  9. tolo4zero says:

    Registration AS EXPERT REVIEWER Confirmed

    Your confirmation number is: 338

  10. Jenn Oates says:

    That’s a lot of expert reviewers. :)

  11. pat says:

    good luck, but the following probably gives us a clue how the Report will turn out:

    Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
    Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
    Chapter 1: Introduction
    Review Editors includes: Peter WADHAMS, UK
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-releases/ipcc-wg1-ar5-authors.pdf

    9 Sept: Guardian: Terry Macalister: Climate change expert calls for nuclear power ‘binge’ to avert global warming
    Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, warns CO2 levels are rising at a faster than exponential rate
    Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, said both potential solutions had inherent dangers but were now vital as time was running out.
    “It is very, very depressing that politicians and the public are attuned to the threat of climate change even less than they were 20 years ago when Margaret Thatcher sounded the alarm. CO2 levels are rising at a faster than exponential rate, and yet politicians only want to take utterly trivial steps such as banning plastic bags and building a few windfarms,” he said.
    “I am very suspicious of using technology to solve problems created by technology, given that we have messed up so much in the past but having done almost nothing for two decades we need to adopt more desperate measures such as considering geo-engineering techniques as well as conducting a major nuclear programme.”…
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/09/climate-change-expert-calls-for-nuclear-power-boost

    7 Sept: Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr: A Provocative New Study Reported By The BBC – Arctic Ice Melt ‘Like Adding 20 Years Of CO2 Emissions’
    (BBC) includes the text:
    …Prof Wadhams calculates this absorption of the sun’s rays is having an effect “the equivalent of about 20 years of additional CO2 being added by man”…ETC…
    (PIELKE) However, what Peter Wadhams did not report is that IF, as a result of a reduction of surface albedo, the reduction in the Arctic ice cap has put as much heat into the system as all the CO2 we have generated in that time, it means that the radiative warming contribution of added CO2 over recent decades, as diagnosed by upper surface heat content, a global average surface temperature anomaly, a lower tropospheric temperature anomaly, etc, has been significantly overstated…
    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/a-provocative-new-study-reported-by-the-bbc-arctic-ice-melt-like-adding-20-years-of-co2-emissions/

  12. 0U812 says:

    ‘Lost In The Desert’!

    That says it all!

    Here’s hoping for quick death to all of the hapless AR5 ‘Inductees’ on their ‘Bataan March’ into Madness.

    Chuckles

  13. DaveH says:

    Meet #341 here…

  14. Stephanie Clague says:

    ‘Lost in the desert’

    How very apt and descriptive of the ‘CAGW save the planet by destroying our modern industrial civilisation scam’. Our leaders are literally leading us all into the economic desert by promising us that over the next dune a paradise on earth will magically appear. Follow us comes the cry from our leaders, trust us to lead you to a new promised land, the sacrifices you make on the way will be handsomely rewarded when the promised land is reached. In reality you can imagine our leaders taking us on a trek to thin out the herd.

    And the further we go into the desert, the more effort will be required to carry on and the less likely it is that we will be able to retreat because the effort to retreat becomes less attractive and more painful in the short term. And that is the essence of the fraud of the modern age, the cult of CAGW that urges us to take so much on trust, that our leaders are gifted with a knowledge beyond us, that they have a sight into the future superior to our own. We have been lied to and deceived and manipulated on a scale never before seen. We truly are being led into a desert and the oblivion that awaits anyone stupid enough to enter and its no less suicidal than joining a cult like heavens gate.

  15. richardscourtney says:

    New Reviewers:

    I have served as IPCC Expert Reviewer but I won’t bother this time.

    It seems that a UN FCCC nation’s agency does not need to nominate Expert Reviewers this time. The US NOAA nominated me as an Expert Reviewer for the AR4 and I accepted the nomination then did the job. But no notice was taken of any of my review comments.

    So, when the IPCC Chairman asked me to review the Synthesis Report I did not bother. And I won’t bother this time: it merely adds to the X number of scientists the IPCC claims were involved in preparation of the Report.

    Richard

  16. Lance Wallace says:

    344 here

  17. Steve C says:

    I love that web address – sod.ipcc.etc …couldn’t put it better. :-)

    Get out there and keep ‘em honest, folks, and good reviewing.

  18. KnR says:

    I wonder a report from an organisation that relies on AGW for its very existence is going to say about AGW ?
    Anyone want to give odds on ‘its worse than we thought’

  19. Dodgy Geezer says:

    @richardscourtney

    “I have served as IPCC Expert Reviewer but I won’t bother this time. It seems that a UN FCCC nation’s agency does not need to nominate Expert Reviewers this time. The US NOAA nominated me as an Expert Reviewer for the AR4 and I accepted the nomination then did the job. But no notice was taken of any of my review comments…..”

    That is a shame. “In order for evil to flourish, all that is required is for good men to do nothing.”
    Incidentally, my old History teacher always taught us that the way the Bolsheviks saw off the Mensheviks in the early days of the development of the Soviet Communist Party was by running interminable meetings and sidelining the Mensheviks until they all stopped bothering to attend…

  20. Bloke down the pub says:

    Sod IPCC? That’s a link that everyone should go to.

  21. tango says:

    I was not excepted as there where no boxes to tick saying climate sceptic. shame I will not be there

    [I expected you wanted accepted if you didn't want to be excepted ..... 8<) Robt]

  22. jonny old boy says:

    Lets just hope that a few Glaciologists review it….none clearly did last time…. “Himalayan Glaciers could vanish by 2035″ Um , no they could not. Who said they could ( oh thats right the WWF made that up out of thin air ) and where were the “reviewers” to spot this…… or…… maybe there WERE loads of reviewers who said that was wrong but were ignored !? I for one am looking forward to seeing how they intend to massage the Cape Verde Hurricane statistics and trends to make it seem like the exact opposite of what we are observing is actually happening….. That is going to take some spinning but I am sure they can pull it off…..

  23. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @RichardSC

    This confirms my suspicions – all of them. I have been watching the trophospheric hot spot argument because it is a core element of the static atmosphere GHG theory of “radiative physics”. The radiosonde data do not support the theory. There is no need to make long presentations about it as an expert reviewer if the fix is already in. Rumor has it the data has been “homogenised” until it confessed there might be some warming but further research is needed to know for sure. In other words there is no warming.

    You may recall the phalanx of warmistas who showed up here to dispute with me this missing signature of GHG warming. It is a very sore spot, not a hot spot. As is very nicely pointed out above, if the tropical hot spot prediction has been replaced with ‘polar amplification’ and the Arctic heating represents “20 years” worth of CO2, then the forcing has been greatly overestimated by the IPCC.

    Now that we have confirmation of accumulating Antarctic ice mass and basically flat temperatures since 1958 the ‘polar amplification’ idea is looking a little tatty too.

    It is hard not to make the comparison between the inflated promises of the emerging green economy and the heady prophecies of Nonqawuse, the Xhosa prophetess. She assured the community that if they slaughtered their cattle (economy) and burned their crops (ethanol) heavenly warriors (green jihadists) would rise out of the oceans (endless renewables) and drive the White Man (CO2) out of their lands (atmosphere). They just had to believe.

    It was in 1857. On the appointed day they killed and burned, and the sun rose, and they starved. They have still not recovered. The terraced fields near Nonqawuse’s pool can still be seen, overgrown and abandoned.

    One does not have to add a pennyweight to the burden being placed on the shoulders of the next generation by legitimizing the foretellings of AR5. But do keep your eye on the trophospheric sore spot. It is key and they know it, and it is not there.

  24. Glenn says:

    Introducing #337! I doubt they’ll let me through, though, since I stated my expertise as editorial, not scientific (true story). We’ll see how that goes.

  25. Colin Porter says:

    I think that WUWT has lost its way just recently with some of the articles it has published, and I think this may be the worst one.

    When others see how WUWT is behaving in encouraging carpet bombing of the AR5 process by suggesting that sceptical bloggers register as expert reviewers, they will say that our side is behaving extremely irresponsibly in attempting to subvert the workings of a “highly professional United Nations body.” By all means, encourage real experts to register, such as Anthony, but please not your average Joe Blogger. It will only backfire on us. I know that we all think that we would make expert reviewers, but the world will not see it that way.

    Likewise, the article the other day, “Replication of Lewandowsky Survey” is also somewhat petty and could also backfire. Commenters from the other side could say that it was not conducted professionally and did not replicate all the detail of the Lewandowsky survey, but if it had followed the procedures of Lewandowsky, it would almost certainly be unprofessional. You are damned if you replicate and damned if you don’t. But the biggest risk is if the warmist side bomb this survey as would be sceptics and confirm the Lewandowsky results. WUWT and the sceptical community would indeed have egg on their face. On the other side, with all the negative publicity attached to the Lewandowsky report, surely it can be argued that the WUWT readership has effectively been pre warned not to make wild statements concerning the authenticity of the moon landings when filling in the survey. That alone completely destroys the point of this alternative survey and makes it little more than a bit of titillation for the readership.

    There have been other articles which I would rather not mention here as I would not wish to upset our host who has been generally doing an exceptional job, nor would I wish to get on the wrong side of Willis again and would encourage him to continue producing these quirky little tidbits in his inimitable style.

    What we should be continuing to do is to concentrate on exposing all the flaws from the AGW community, ridiculing their claims, especially from their disciples and exposing all the corruption associated with the movement and not to allow their side the same opportunities by producing articles like this one.

  26. Alec Rawls says:

    Colin says that this post is “encouraging carpet bombing of the AR5 process by suggesting that sceptical bloggers register as expert reviewers.” That is a non-sequitur. Skeptical bloggers CAN be expert reviewers. I am indeed an expert on the omitted variable fraud that is the very backbone of AR5. Encouraging other people to review AR5 in their areas of expertise is most certainly NOT a call for “carpet bombing” with un-expert views.

    Colin’s premise seems to be that people who are not credentialed climate scientists cannot have relevant expertise, which is absurd. What grounds does he have to cast aspersions on any of the six people above who have gone to the trouble of applying to be expert reviewers, signing up to put their names and reputations on the line in comments that will be part of the public record henceforth? I’m sure there are dozens more WUWT commenters who could easily qualify by any standard as having relevant expertise to review AR5. How about a little respect?

  27. old construction worker says:

    Doesn’t the IPCC write the summary first?

  28. Andrejs Vanags says:

    How does the process work? I was confirmed as #393, but does that mean I get to review the draft? or does only a subset of the entire pool of volunteers will be nominated to review the report?

  29. Peter Kovachev says:

    #389 ready for duty. Not sure I’ll be let-in; my publications are in applied sciences relating to long-term weathering of architectural construction materials in urban micro-climates.

  30. Colin Porter says:

    Alex

    In response to your comments on my comment, firstly, may I congratulate you on your article on “Omitted variable fraud.” It is an excellent article, which I agree with whole heartedly. The quality of your article demonstrates your abilities as an expert reviewer and I wish you well in your efforts in that respect. However, the fact that you are accusing these people of fraud will probably mean that you will be completely ignored, as will those bloggers who you have spurred on to serve as expert reviewers also. I don’t know these people and I certainly was not casting aspersions on their climate credentials. But Richard S Courtney makes an excellent point when he says that he was ignored as an invited expert reviewer except for his contribution in swelling the numbers of expert reviewers. So the amateur blogger, no matter what his expertise, is most certainly going to be ignored, except by the alarmist media who will call their contribution an interference in the process.

    I would suggest that you would have much greater success by plugging your “Varied omitted fraud” accusations to our politicians and others and to bring into question the IPCC’s own credentials as the keepers of the science.

    As I have made two contributions to this thread, that now presumably qualifies me as an expert reviewer, but I shall not be putting my name forward to the IPCC.

  31. Tom Murphy says:

    Confirmation No. 394 for Chapters 10 and 14 (my time is limited and precious) – hopefully providing an environmental perspective from the electric and gas utility sectors…

  32. Alec Rawls says:

    Andrejs: The confirmation numbers are just confirmations of having applied. If they accept you as an expert reviewer they will let you know (not sure when) and send you a password (on October 5th).

  33. petermue says:

    Anthony, why don’t you sign-up Kenji as an expert reviewer? ;-)

    REPLY: While that would be funny, I’m pretty sure it would require me to lie in the application as they require publication citations IIRC. THE UCS had no such questions for Kenji…and they apparently still don’t care. – Anthony

  34. Policy Guy says:

    So…

    Colin Porter says:
    September 11, 2012 at 6:59 am
    I think that WUWT has lost its way just recently with some of the articles it has published, and I think this may be the worst one.

    When others see how WUWT is behaving in encouraging carpet bombing of the AR5 process by suggesting that sceptical bloggers register as expert reviewers, they will say that our side is behaving extremely irresponsibly in attempting to subvert the workings of a “highly professional United Nations body.”

    —-

    The misbehavior is not with WUWT. Check out the site registration requirements. This is a classic cherry picking exercise. To apply, one has to have 5 published papers. Thus folks are screened not only on the title of their published work, but also by which publication stuck its neck out (or not).

    So Mr. Porter, have no worries, even the most published participants on this site would never pass the star-room review of acceptable credentials. The criteria for which is of course is never disclosed. Take your anxiety elsewhere. There are no problems here. AR5 remains in well paid hands. You can go back to sleep.

    Enjoy its results.

  35. Policy Guy says:

    Colin Porter says:
    September 11, 2012 at 6:59 am

    …Likewise, the article the other day, “Replication of Lewandowsky Survey” is also somewhat petty and could also backfire. Commenters from the other side could say that it was not conducted professionally and did not replicate all the detail of the Lewandowsky survey, but if it had followed the procedures of Lewandowsky, it would almost certainly be unprofessional. You are damned if you replicate and damned if you don’t.

    —-

    I neglected the rest of your comment, sorry. Had you taken the survey you would have noticed the contradictory compound questions that asked for a single response. You would also have noticed the clever way that questions were crafted so that any refined answer didn’t count. The survey wasn’t worth the TP upon which it was conceived. Again, Mr Porter, please resume your sleep.

  36. daveburton says:

    Policy Guy, to be an AR5 WGI expert reviewer you needn’t have 5 published papers. In fact, you needn’t have any, if you can demonstrate your expertise in some other way. The form has space for listing 5 published papers, but you needn’t fill them in.

Comments are closed.