Dr. Judith Curry on the AR5 Draft leak:
The leak of the SOD was a good thing; the IPCC still has the opportunity to do a much better job, and the wider discussion in the blogosphere and even the mainstream media places pressure on the IPCC authors to consider these issues; they can’t sweep them under the rug as in previous reports.
Full story here
Judith Curry writes “they can’t sweep them under the rug as in previous reports.”
The IPCC has told so many lies, that they have no alternative but to try and “sweep them under the rug”.
Oh, that’s a rug. I was wondering what the colorful little thing on top of that giant dung heap was.
Being an optimist, I hope that what we are witnessing is the self-correcting aspect of science.
Never underestimate the ability of a politician to lie. Vid
Reality is stepping up and at least starting to be used.
Think how good the GCM’s will be in another 10-20 years!
Right now….not so good, but there is hope something useful will emerge.
The rug looks like a postage stamp atop a great festering dung heap.
One of the hardest things to do is to stand up in front of an audience and admit that you have made a mistake, even when the mistake was genuine.
In the case of the IPCC and many of the participents there was a deliberate intent to mislead the public, in many cases for monetery gain. This is fraud.
They have dug themselves in so deep, I can’t see how they can get out and save face.
Gonna’ be a very lumpy rug.
Judith Curry writes “they can’t sweep them under the rug as in previous reports.”
Why not? these people are expert ‘adjusters’ and with a press willing to do little more than re-report without asking questions . Plus a greater scientific community that over the years have proved at the worst it will say nothing about abuse of the scientific process in this area and more often its willing to back it up to ensure the funding keeps flowing, there really is nothing to stop them.
Effect is a different issue , and that is where public interest and so political will comes in and its in this area that things have changed from AR4 to the IPCC’s determinate.
The rug nearly reaches the ceiling !!!
Jim Cripwell says:
December 19, 2012 at 3:44 pm
“The IPCC has told so many lies, that they have no alternative but to try and “sweep them under the rug”.”
Jim, the IPCC has told so many lies they no longer know where the rug is.
You know.She does try,but just the quote above from Jim says it all .I see in her little abstract, that she still pushing the CO2 rise meme,doublying,temp follows CO2,etc.
Wonder how her bussiness is doing?
How big is the rug?
As always right on and rational. Hum that’s a mark of good science isn’t it. Unfortunately the IPCC can and will ignore any criticism or disagreement. They are not scientists but political hacks and pseudo power brokers. Just listen to me I’m sounding more like a cynic ever day. Never fear, that is only temporary since the others extreme is as evil as they are.
SOD + Dame Judith = A lot more than a WUWT Wednesday “Quote of the week”
These people from the IPCC are so far invested in global warming that they will never admit that they are wrong. Just like French physicist Prosper-René Blondlot, he went to his grave believing in N rays, they most likely will do the same when it comes to this. So all we can do is just sit back & laugh as none of there predictions come true. I live at sea level & have been waiting the past 20 years for it to rise. Guess what, nothing is happening. I get a big laugh out of it though.
This leaking of the SOD should be ranked up there with the release of the Climategate emails. This timely leak, before it could be plugged up and rewritten will save trillions of dollars and countless lives and will preserve freedom. The work being done right now by outsiders on all the deficient parts of this SECOND order draft issuing from this leak is a huge gift to humankind. There is no going back now by the new world order types. Maybe it will even bring down the UN. Hmm, that is probably asking for too much. The National Review and Steyn are presently having their case put together for them, too, with this. Giddiness is excusable – wishing you all a real Happy New Year.
Guarding the guardians–at last!
Josh, are you getting all of this?
Remember when the ‘seance’ of the 30s was popular,you know spirits and all, was doom and gloom and fact of life.
Well let’s redefine that ‘seance’ as modern day ‘Climatology’, it seems no different to me,same mumbo Jumbo, hand waiving,jumping up and down,screeching,trying to terrify the audience.
Yes ‘Climatology’ is no more than ‘Climastrology’ or in other words a ‘seance’ to attract a gullible audience and scare the sh*t out of them.
“The leak of the SOD was a good thing; the IPCC still has the opportunity to do a much better job, and the wider discussion in the blogosphere and even the mainstream media places pressure on the IPCC authors to consider these issues; they can’t sweep them under the rug as in previous reports.”
===============
Just changed my opinion, for the moment.
Rug? We don’t need no stinkin’ rug.
No need for a rug when your god causes the floor to be both dirty and clean, at the same time. It takes hundreds, if not thousands of years to defeat gods.
places pressure on the IPCC authors to consider these issues
They’ve managed to ignore the solar spectral variation issue for decades.
If solar spectral output is thought of as basically a Bell curve then TSI is the area under the curve. To date climate scientists of the alarmist variety have not incorporated shifts in the Bell curve as a significant variation with respect to Earth’s climate but instead insist that only the area under the curve matters. Why wouldn’t we expect more or less UV, more or less blue, more or less red, etc. to impact climate?
They’ve also managed to convince themselves (or at least publically seem to) that since solar maximum hasn’t coincided with temperature maximum that the Sun cannot be the driving factor of recent warming even though diurnal temperature maximum lags diurnal solar maximum and annual temperature maximum lags annual solar maximum. Why wouldn’t we expect centurial temperature maximum to lag centurial solar maximum?
Judith Curry writes “they can’t sweep them under the rug as in previous reports.”
=======================================================================
Reminds me of all those comparisons that are made to show how much of something there is. You know, like, “There’s enough concrete in Hoover Dam to build a road that would circle the globe five times!” (or however many times it would be)
So how big would this rug be?
“This rug is big enough to pull the wool over 6 billion eyes!”
“This rug is big enough to pull the rug out from under the economies of the entire free world!”
The extreme warming crowd have stated that “the time for discussing the science is over”.
Some of the same fanatics are advocating spending billions of dollars to create a bureaucracy to run and skim off money from a carbon capping scheme and trading scheme. The money that is not skimmed of the carbon trading scheme must be spent on green scams. If there is a shortage of funding Western governments should borrow and print money to as necessary to top.
The reason why the extreme warming paradigm pushers do not want to discuss the science and need to keep AR-5 discussions behind close doors, is the science does not support a 3C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The observation and analysis supports a warming of less than 2C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, ignoring the impact of the solar magnetic cycle changes on the 20th century warming. If a significant portion of the 20th century warming has caused by solar cycle changes, the planet will now cool as it appears solar cycle 24 is a lead in to a Maunder minimum.
Top of the atmosphere measurement of the outgoing radiation (long wave and short wave) vs short term planetary temperature changes indicates the planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative (planet resists the change by reflecting more or less sunlight off into space) rather than to amplify the change (positive feedback).
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation … …we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. ….
…The heart of the global warming issue is so-called greenhouse warming. This refers to the fact that the earth balances the heat received from the sun (mostly in the visible spectrum) by radiating in the infrared portion of the spectrum back to space. … ….However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling.
“One of the hardest things to do is to stand up in front of an audience and admit that you have made a mistake, even when the mistake was genuine.”
WRONG,WRONG,WRONG. If you do not have the fortitude,or morals,to admit a wrong,then we are heading for the hole faster then I thought.
Know the trick: Look them in the eye, and state that there is a flaw out there. Find it.
I’m reminded of the story of the Hoover salesman out in the boonies of the mid-southern hills, who dumped a pail of dirt on a homemaker’s rug and vowed to eat his hat if his vacuum cleaner didn’t suck it all up, satisfactorily. The hausfrau handed him his hat and told him to start in, because the house didn’t have any electricity.
The IPCC has dumped a lot of dirt on the rug, and now has a hard time finding power for their machine.
==============
Gunga Din,
I believe the correct metric is: how many Olympic-size swimming pools would be filled if the rug was 1/2 inch thick?
•••
kimmy:
You’re too young to remember, but that vacuum cleaner salesman was Lou Costello, from a skit by Abbott & Costello.
D Böehm says:
December 19, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Gunga Din,
I believe the correct metric is: how many Olympic-size swimming pools would be filled if the rug was 1/2 inch thick?
================================================================
Maybe that’s what their problem is! Their rug is measured in inches but the Olympic pools use the metric system!
(But how did the Ancient Greeks measure their swimming pools? Cubits? More research funds are needed.)
@Tom in Florida,
“Jim, the IPCC has told so many lies they no longer know where the rug is.”
The IPCC has told so many lies that no longer know what a rug is. 🙂
Recall the oft-repeated and favorite slogan of the warmers: “the science is settled”. You don’t hear it these days. The peer reviewed system of publications failed to throttle fruitful discourse in climate science, thanks to the science blogs like WUWT and Judith Curry.
Once again, thanks are due to Alec Rawls, who is to be congratulated for his leadership. The benefits of his act continue to issue forth and will for years, I predict.
In retrospect, now is probably a better time to have reached a wider review than with the earlier rounds. We have the history of previous reports to demonstrate the way in which the process has been inaccurate in the past, and a greatly improved store of detailed measurements.
The previous iterations have successfully condensed a good proportion of the subject matter – it is much easier to argue about the accuracy and objectivity of the current draft in that context.
I feel there are also more experts in the field who are realising that maybe they have an opportunity to make a name for themselves by standing up (even if they risk being wrong, because that is guaranteed in at least some details)
Re: sweeping stuff under the rug and adjusting their way out of the mess they have created.
You know, in a way, the vast amount of pro AGW papers used and cited within the past IPCC reports is what will be the nail in their coffin as regards being able to ‘hide’ corrections – because I don’t think they can retrospectively run back and republish that vast catalog of ‘errors’ (yeah, I know, it was probably bad science too!)
Of course, they could always come out and say something like ‘Ah, we’re still not certain, as the science and observations don’t match – so can we have more cash, and we will try again for another 20 years, please, pretty please?’
Be in no doubt, many of the ‘97%’ of alleged climate scientists secretly harbor doubts. You can’t look at the projections and reality and fail to have doubts, yet they have nailed their flags to the mast, painted themselves into a corner, dug themselves into a hole – it’s going to take gold medal scientific and public relations gymnastics to get out of this (if it continues to fail to warm).
————-
Anthony, please use headlines such as “Quote of the Week: Dr. Judith Curry on the AR5 Draft leak” so it is easier to find these things in the archive.
There is “the search for truth” and there is a “cause”. These don’t seem to be the same.
Seconded1
REPLY: Done.
the IPCC still has the opportunity to do a much better job
The problem, Dr Curry, is if the IPCC does do a better job it will remove any justification for its own existence.
I suggest the IPCC formally be merged into the UN so it can quietly molder away in an office in Geneva or somewhere sinecure-ish, so the rest of us can be spared their increasingly silly hysteria.
Here’s something else she said, which is even pithier:
From her Week in Review 12/15/12 post:
I’ve downloaded the SPM and a few of the chapters. The extreme overconfidence of many of their conclusions is bewildering.
Just how many knots can a pretzel have? Giving it another twist does not a straight line make. Hugely entertaining, though. I wonder if the “climate scientists” responsible for that huge pile of dung under that little tiny rug, cry themselves to sleep at night. I’m surprised they can actually leave the house – I should have thought shame would prevent them from showing their faces.
Most people will not even look at the rug, or even notice the lumpy thing. They will simply uncritically believe whatever they are told.
You don’t have to fool all of the people all of the time, or even most of the people, you only have to fool just enough to ram through your agenda, which is simply seize power and don’t let go. Once you have enough power it simply doesn’t matter what the truth is, you can assure that no one will ever here it, and even if they do, they will be unable to do anything about it.
Winning the truth or scientific argument is not winning, seizing the power is.