Who makes up the IPCC?

With all three, the science has advanced significantly
Giles, so if the science has advanced, as you say, significantly (a grand word) then why can’t those IPCC scientists do the following:
1. Correct data for the first century of temperature monitoring. Nearly all the data collected in or near urban areas is contaminated by very dense urban fog that did not clear up until years after the Clean Air Act was passed.
2. Correct data for the last half a century contaminated by the urban heat island effect. The Met Office claims to do some adjustment for UHI after 1974 but not prior. That’s for CET data only. For the rest of the world I am not aware of any adjustment taking place and if they are doing so, how accurate their methods are.
3. Remove all low quality surface stations from the temperature record.
If they do that they’ll see that the warming has been less than currently stated and that it isn’t a catastrophe for the the world.
Then there is the question of remaining smog and other effects of urbanisation. If cities like Shanghai and Los Angeles or countries like India and Bangladesh go low carbon they’re going to see warming of about a degree or maybe a couple of degrees because removing the smog that hangs over their cities will allow the full extent of sunlight to penetrate to ground level and heat up all the concrete, metal, asphalt, rivers and lakes.
So urban warming is unavoidable. Cities are going to experience the temperatures that existed a millennium ago, but the difference is they have more urban infrastructure to absorb that warming and make it feel hotter. Currently air pollution is preventing them from feeling the heat. They need to start adapting at the same time as air pollution is being cleared up, but politicians and scientists are so hung up on carbon dioxide that they are sending the wrong signals to the public and private sectors.
What I’m saying with all this is, that most of the temperature rise we have seen over the last two centuries are because of us coming out of the Little Ice Age, clearing up smog which has allowed more and more sunlight to penetrate to ground level, and building up our cities which absorb and retain more heat.
In the countryside, in the mountains and in the troposphere we do not see anything close to what the cities are feeling. Global warming therefore should be renamed Urban Warming, and then that should be the focus for organisations like the IPCC. How do we make warming cities more manageable and easier to live in as temperatures increase?
With that angle we can apply advanced climate science and urban planning. Without it the IPCC is simply acting like a bunch of Hollywood actors in a sci-fi disaster movie.

Aron (03:20:19) :
So if you disagree with Gore you are either a flat earther, creationist, Holocaust denier, criminal, paid by big oil, senile or (in Lovelock’s case) have forgotten science.

I don’t think Gore saying that “Lovelock has forgotten more about science than he [Gore] will ever know” is an insult. It’s typically a way of characterizing how much knowledge the person who has forgotten more than the other will ever know has. Maybe Gore meant it as some sort of jab, but if he did, he doesn’t know what the phrasing actually means.

“If they do that they’ll see that the warming has been less than currently stated and that it isn’t a catastrophe for the the world.”
So, why haven’t one of the ICCC scientists done that? Or maybe they did.

@anna v (04:16:35) :
Nice summary, anna, too bad it was over Giles head. I think his entire comment on it shows he really isn’t after honest discussion:

Giles Winterbourne (05:14:53) :
anna,
Where have you published your concerns? What discussions have been published?

Let’s try that again; with a bit closer reading:” So, why haven’t one of the ICCC scientists done that? Or maybe they did.” 08:32:01
“They have not done any of what I said. You’ll find not one IIPCC scientist who has adjusted for smog/dimming for the first century of temperature recording.”

“Anna was commenting on your cites to WG1.”
It looks like her comments are directed to chaps 8-10. I pointed to chap 6

Ah I see, Giles.
Well, nobody has done it because of the size of the task. Here we see laziness on both sides of the debate, but more so on the IPCC side because they have no excuse with the amount of money and data they can receive.
In what spare time I have I am trying to get a grip on how much of a cooling effect 19th century to mid 20th century dimming had on temperature data. But I don’t have a budget for it, it is a hobby at the moment. How come none of those well funded .gov scientists with their advanced modeling and powerful computing farms haven’t done it if they are honest and have integrity?
Anthony has done a huge amount of work on the issue of surface station data contaminated by UHI. Again, well funded scientists could have done the work he has so why haven’t they? I suggest you read the FAQs at surfacestations.org

Giles Winterbourne (09:39:28) : It looks like her comments are directed to chaps 8-10. I pointed to chap 6
Oh. Are you saying the chapter stories are independent of each other and refuting 8-10 does nothing toward refuting the message because CH6 was all that was needed?
You do realize that the IPCC Report is a political white paper and the WG1 papers were amassed by the authors as evidence for their recommended assessment, don’t you? It wasn’t intended as a scientific venue. Are you aware that the majority of participants were political hacks and not scientists? The report was designed to convey a story and the panel members were free to pick and choose the content. You do understand this, yes?

“It wasn’t intended as a scientific venue. Are you aware that the majority of participants were political hacks and not scientists? The report was designed to convey a story and the panel members were free to pick and choose the content. You do understand this, yes?”
Sorry to repeat, but where are you getting that from?

Giles Winterbourne (10:40:06) : Sorry to repeat, but where are you getting that from?
Sorry. I thought you actually read your sources otherwise you wouldn’t be asking. It’s all there were you linked. As you are the “cite” expert, you should be well aware of the content. I suggest actually reading those links before continuing.
You really don’t understand how foolish you look, do you? It’s more than a little apparent you cry “cite please!” every time you are dumbfounded. What exactly are you after anyway? Discussion doesn’t seem to be it.
In any case, I futher suggest you don’t ask again. You may be surprised to learn most of us here, unlike you, have actually read the IPCC papers. You aren’t telling us anything new. We are far more interested in YOUR thoughts than someone else’s. It’s becoming increasingly clear you have no opinions which haven’t been dictated, hence the constant “cite please!”
Quit wasting your time and show some original thought. Quit before you get further behind.

Hello Giles
I suspect you have been reading too much RealClimate propaganda. You seem very keen on theory rather than facts, and refuse to answer the simple question as to how doubling co2 brings us a temperature increase of up to 4.5C
The only one to attempt this is Miskolczi who calculates .24c here;
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-effect-in-semi-transparent-planetary-atmospheres-by-miskolczi-a-review/
As you seem to believe there are thousands of IPCC scientists, please quote me the step by step guide from just 5 of them. I am sure Steve McIntyre will be very excited that someone has at last managed to answer the question he has been asking for some years over at Climate Audit. So we all eagerly look forward to a different answer to Miskolczi
As you appear to be so credulous about accepting unsubstantiated theory I suspect you are a fan of Dr Mann. Our understanding of the past and its climate -as it affected real people living in the real world, not a virtual version- was thought to be comprehensive before Dr Mann demonstrated that he knew better, by the production of his hockey stick, and stated that “the medieval warm period is an outdated concept.” That obviously means the person that wrote the following can be disregarded as a sceptic.
“From ancient civilisations through Bronze age cultures, Greeks Roman, all flourished in times of benign climate and perished when climate turned against them.
Yet the historical climate records of the western hemisphere suggests that around AD 950 temperatures increased and the climate changed at precisely the same time as the Mayan collapse far to the north. Leif Eriksson sailed through the Labrador sea between the new settlement of his father Eric the red in Greenland and North America, becoming the first European to set foot on what we called Vinland. This began the global climate shift known as the mediaeval warm epoch …it clearly seems to have been a shift in the global climate pattern recorded in North America by the first Europeans there. Up until around 900 the north Atlantic sea routes from Scandinavia and Iceland to the new communities in Greenland had been completely frozen over and impassable and at the end of the warm epoch, around 1300, temperature began to fall and sea ice again blocked the routes. After the warming epoch temperatures fell again at the beginning of the 14th century.”
Curiously however, the author is much feted, as he is none other than Al Gore in his rather good book ‘Earth in the Balance’ dating from 1992. His numerous climactic references demonstrate the earth has been warmer than present at various times, for example during the MWP. Yet this book is ignored, whilst many hang on to his every word for his ‘An Inconvenient truth’-roundly condemned by a British High court judge whilst banning its use in British schools without amendments on nine scientific errors
. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm
Perhaps you believe all the doomsayers Giles, who are convinced we have four years or so to save the world? Anyone remember the book ‘5000 days to save the Earth’ by former editors of the Ecologist, now time expired without anything happening, but the precursor of the current clutch of doom sayers-from Prince Charles to James Hansen?
http://www.theecologist.info/page38.html
That catastrophe always seem to be happening or is imminent, is documented here, with details of dozens of the warming and cooling scares over the past 100 years .
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
Climate science theory that works in a controlled laboratory experiment or on a computer model, may not produce the same results in a real world situation. Those who believe otherwise are disagreeing with the IPCC themselves, for Kevin Trenberth, one of their lead authors wrote,
“…the startling climate state in several models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.”
Another independent study demonstrates that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale which caused this observation
“In essence, the study found that climate models have no predictive value.”
http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671
Water vapour and clouds are acknowledged to play a crucial part if the climate is to be accurately modelled, but as the IPCC themselves admit numerous times, it can’t be achieved;
“…cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty…”
“In climate research and modelling we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non linear chaotic system and therefore that the long term predictions of future climate states is not possible.”
Perhaps you are a fan of Dr Hansen who believes the sea is going to rise a metre by 2100? To attain a 1 metre increase by 2100 means an average rise of nearly 11mm a year (only 91 years remaining). There is simply no real evidence to show this is happening. Except on computer models.
The idea of a ‘global sea level’ to record the 24/7 movement of the ocean as it impacts on 1 million kilometres of coastline is as equally bizzare as that of a global temperature, let alone the over reliance placed on satellite data going back only to 1994.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/sea-level/
To prove a trend, records going much further back need to be examined and these show rather different things-that levels rise and fall over time.
Newlyn in Cornwall
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/resids/170-161.gif
and Helsinki. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/resids/060-351.gif
The following link leads to a graph produced by the Dutch Govt and confirm sea levels are stable and are somewhat lower than during the MWP.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
The greatest sea level expert in the world is Prof Morner who says: “The mean eustatic rise in sea level for the period 1850-1930 was in the order of 1.0-1.1mm/year,” but that “after 1930-40, this rise seems to have stopped (Pirazzoli et al., 1989; Morner, 1973,2000).” This stasis, in his words, “lasted, at least, up to the mid-60s.” Thereafter, “the record can be divided into three parts: (1) 1993-1996 with a clear trend of stability, (2) 1997-1998 with a high-amplitude rise and fall recording the ENSO event of these years and (3) 1998-2000 with an irregular record of no clear tendency.” Most important of all, in his words, “There is a total absence of any recent ‘acceleration in sea level rise’ as often claimed by IPCC and related groups.”
He concludes: “When we consider past records, recorded variability, causational processes involved and the last century’s data, our best estimate of possible future sea-level changes is +10 +/- 10cm in a century, or, maybe, even +5 +/- 15cm.” See also Morner (1995); INQUA (2000).”
Being ‘in the business’ I agree with Professor Morner that sea level is not really doing very much generally (with exceptions either way in some places)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
The above link dissects the data and Morner stresses that observational data contradicts the theoretical interpolated and massaged data that is used by the IPCC.
You seem curiously reluctant to discuss history Giles. Perhaps you believe everything that is happening today is unprecedented-like a warmer arctic than in the past and therfore don’t accept that Arctic ice melt happens every 60 years or so?
As everything is ‘unprecedented’ we can therefore safely discount that the Vikings in Greenland could possibly have lived in a warmer arctic culture 1000 years ago. We will therefore want to forget the physical evidence and also ignore a very interesting book about them called ‘The Viking world’. It is a very scholarly and highly referenced book running to some 700 pages and deals with all aspects of them. It is good because it does not have an axe to grind, but deals matter of factly with all aspects of Viking culture and exploration.
There is a large section on their initial exploration of Greenland, the subsequent establishment of their farms there, everyday life, how they gradually lost access to the outside world as the sea lanes closed through ice, a record of the last wedding held in Greenland and how trade dried up. It also deals with Vinland/Newfoundland and it seems that it was wild grapes that helped give the area its name, it being somewhat warmer than today. The book ‘The Viking World’ is Edited by Stefan Brink with Neil Price Published by Routledge ISBN 978 0 415 33315-3
I suggest you borrow it from the local library as it costs £175!
Perhaps we should also ignore what you must think is the obviously faked Pathe newsreel flm of adventurer Bob Bartlett who regularly travelled far north in a melting arctic in the 1920 and 30’s and became something of a matinee idol at the time. There was an enormous interest about unprecedented global warming as this-and contemporary newspapers- report. Remember that this diary extract is dated Wednesday, 10th August 1932 not 2002
“The ship rolled heavily all night and continues to do so….
The glacier continues its disturbances. No real bergs break off but great sheets of ice slide down into the water and cause heavy seas. About noon, the entire face of the glacier, almost a mile in length and six or eight feet deep slid off with a roar and a rumble that must have been heard at some distance. We were on deck at the time for a preliminary report like a pistol shot had warned us what was coming. The Morrissey rolled until her boats at the davits almost scooped up the water and everything on board that was not firmly anchored in place crashed loose. But this was nothing to the pandemonium on shore. I watched it all through the glasses. The water receded leaving yards of beach bare and then returned with a terrific rush, bringing great chunks of ice with it. Up the beach it raced further and further, with the Eskimos fleeing before it. It covered all the carefully cherished piles of walrus meat, flowed across two of the tents with their contents, put out the fire over which the noonday meal for the sled drivers was being prepared, and stopped a matter of inches before it reached the pile of cement waiting to be taken up the mountain. (for a monument)
http://www.heritage.nf.ca/exploration/bobbartlett.html
Melting glaciers? Sounds strangely familiar doesn’t it
Being able to disregard the past also enables us to ignore the fact that that the iceberg that sank the Titanic in 1912 came from a melting glacier. Or that the Royal Society mounted an expedition to the arctic in 1817 in response to thirty years of reports from whalers of melting ice. Presumably the extensive records of the Hudson Bay co revealing constantly changing sea ice extent over hundreds of years should also be ignored?
So let’s forget the past altogether Giles, let’s forget that arctic ice melt is not unprecedented. Let’s disregard the nonsense of relying on the extraordinary concept of one global temperature, or the tiny numbers of stations used to represent this ideal in 1850, or the constantly changing number, location, and methodology of those reporting over the last century. Let’s believe the IPCC figures for UHI is really only a fraction of what we can actually feel when we visit an urban area or is mentioned in tv weather forecasts. Hey!, lets even forget that Callendar and Keeling had second thoughts about the hare they started running.
Instead, let’s all wait patiently for the information you are about to post about precisely how co2 doubling causes the rise of up to 4.5C. Not the theory- the actual step by step proof of the hypotheses.
By the way, whilst you’re at it you can answer another question that irrationalists try to avoid.
Please tell me what constitutes the ‘normal’ climate of the earth and the years when it occurred?
I claim first media rights for the co2 exclusive Anthony, then you can have the next go.
Tonyb.

TonyB (12:49:47) : 1) Instead, let’s all wait patiently for the information you are about to post about precisely how co2 doubling causes the rise of up to 4.5C. Not the theory- the actual step by step proof of the hypotheses. … 2 ) Please tell me what constitutes the ‘normal’ climate of the earth and the years when it occurred?
Tony, wanna make a side bet (to be donated to Anthony) you don’t get a sensible answer to either question? Are you in or out? And, no Giles, “it’s all in the IPCC reports” just won’t cut it — be specific.

Smokey: “Prof. Lindzen has no reason to be jealous of others.”
As I said, he comes across as resentful of his colleagues, as evidenced when he “sticks the knife” as you accurately describe.
As for the accuracy of his accusations and anecdotes, Lindzen’s argument is the standard one: that careers and funding depend on acquiescence to AGW. This claim is difficult if not impossible to confirm or deny, since a growing field such as AGW research will attract people and funding. A full account of any corrupting effects of the popularity of AGW would require an independent enquiry.