Dutch advice to IPCC: limiting the scope to human induced climate change is undesirable
Governments around the world have been asked by IPCC to think about the future of the IPCC. The Netherlands now sent their submission to the IPCC and made it available on the website of KNMI.
I would say Holland is fairly critical about how IPCC is operating right now. This part struck me as most interesting:
The IPCC needs to adjust its principles. We believe that limiting the scope of the IPCC to human induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system, including human-induced climate change. The Netherlands is also of the opinion that the word ‘comprehensive’ may have to be deleted, because producing comprehensive assessments becomes virtually impossible with the ever expanding body of knowledge and IPCC may be more relevant by producing more special reports on topics that are new and controversial.
I agree with both points. The (almost) obsession of IPCC with greenhouse forcing has greatly limited progress in climate science in my opinion, so I am glad my government now raises this point. And in my (Dutch) book De Staat van het Klimaat I concluded that IPCC in AR4 had not succeeded to come up with a “comprehensive” report. I also agree IPCC should pay much more attention to controversial topics. The treatment of controversial topics in AR4 and also AR5 was and is unsatisfactory for two reasons: there is not enough space reserved to go into the necessary details and the author teams are almost always biased in favor of the consensus view and therefore not giving enough credit to minority views.
The Netherlands also want to make an end to the huge volumes IPCC is producing and replace it by shorter web based (special) reports:
More here:
http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/07/05/dutch-advise-to-ipcc-limiting-the-scope-to-human-induced-climate-change-is-undesirable/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I also agree IPCC should pay much more attention to controversial topics.
Such as to the role of CO2?
So Leif in your view what is the role of CO2?
Undesirable? Given the “pause” in rising temperatures it’s completely untenable.
Leif Svalgaard says: “Such as to the role of CO2?”
There might be a few other controversial topics…but maybe not as controversial as the role of CO2.
Since the role of CO2 is a controversial issue [perhaps you disagree?], Marcel Crock urges IPCC to pay more attention to it. So in the opinion of Crock, IPCC is not paying enough attention to CO2, that is all.
…. How about the neglected but highly significant role of Chaos? Perhaps a special report in which chaos takes the blame for the failure of all models to predict anything beyond the best 3 day weather forecast?
Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:42 am
There might be a few other controversial topics…but maybe not as controversial as the role of CO2.
So Crock urges the IPCC to pay more attention to CO2.
Maybe he means other than CO2. Or means they should spend more time on topics less understood so this field can make some progress.
I agree that the “IPCC should pay much more attention to controversial topics” such as the bloody 16 year temperature standstill while CO2 has been climbing. They should also pay attention to the controversial topic of the failure of the vast majority of the climate models to predict / project this. Finally, they should concentrate on the controversial topic of their disbandment with dishonour and shame.
@svalgaard do you usually troll by asking leading questions?
@Leif Svalgaard, You could have made that Good point just a little clearer, 😉
How about the adverse economic impact of the unnecessary promotion of renewable energy on the common folks? Cost vs. benefit? Or maybe the validation of the theory of “abnormal climate warming” and why it’s CO2? sans computer models.
Plan B. Eliminate the IPCC.
Can you trust the IPCC and those close up to it? You decide.
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU and recipient of BP and Shell funding.
Dr. Rendrand Pachauri – teller of fairy tales and former oil executive & advisor to oil extractors.
Michael E. Mann, recipient of the Nobel Prize and tree ring researcher who discovered that some trees respond to precipitation. And the list goes on……………..
You got to love it when climate change advocates replace common sense with being cute. You can see the end coming because the CO2 crows are just not that interested in the truth, they’re interested in winning in the media. But slowly the hot air is escaping the balloon they have constructed and is growing limper by the day.
crows = crowd
The Mob should probably also adjust their principles. Perhaps they could start by not whacking people quite so much.
Dr. Phil Jones IPCC author and inside man.
I have total and utter confidence in the Inter-governmental Panel on Cack Change.
Steven Devijver says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:59 am
@svalgaard do you usually troll by asking leading questions?
I point out that the only reasonable reading of Crock’s piece is that Crock does not consider the role of CO2 as controversial. And that he urges IPCC to pay more attention to things that are controversial, such as the role of the not-controversial CO2 factors. Perhaps you disagree.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Such as to the role of CO2?
Given the ongoing – possibly accelerating – increase since the commencement of the”hiatus”, and taking into account also the reduction in atmospheric water vapour over approximately the same period, in all probability seriously over-rated.
Steven Devijver says:
July 5, 2013 at 10:59 am
such as the role of controversial factors that are not CO2. Perhaps you disagree.
catweazle666 says:
July 5, 2013 at 11:29 am
in all probability seriously over-rated.
Crock implies that the role of CO2 is not controversial in his opinion, so following in that respect the IPCC party line.
Including natural climate change in the IPCCs scope would be counter productive. It would spell the end of the IPCC. Climate change must be seen as human caused only, otherwise there is no issue.
klem says:
July 5, 2013 at 11:34 am
Climate change must be seen as human caused only, otherwise there is no issue.
Crock implies that the role of CO2 is not controversial.
Typo in subheadline, “Dutch advise…” should read , “Dutch advice…”
[Fixed, thx. ~mod.]
henry@leif
Here’s an interesting press release:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
Know that the CO2 is causing cooling from the top (12 hours per day) as proven to from numerous papers, and warming from the bottom (24/7).
And nobody has provided either you or me with a balance sheet.
Yet you continue to “believe” that the net effect of more CO2 is that of warming, rather than cooling….?
……..
Your faith in this (since you do not believe in God) is interesting to me…….