IPCC's Pachauri swarmed by reporters – refuses to step down

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the King’s horses and all the King’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again!
(Even with the help of the UN!)

Expat in France (11:38:33) :
He’s another Gordon Brown – hopelessly inadequate, but refuses to go.
——————————
Sorry to hear that, you have my sympathy.
I also hear the other parties in the UK *ALL* agree on CO2 being the true cause of AGW. This is remarkable that one or more opposition parties don’t play the game politicians usually do and take an opposite stance for the votes. A terrible situation indeed.

As a longtime francophobe and anglophile I object to English being characterized as the “lingua franca” of India. Such an insult!

Michael Reed (04:15:12) :
As a longtime francophobe and anglophile I object to English being characterized as the “lingua franca” of India. Such an insult!
Then I’d better not mention the official languages of Pondicherry are Tamil, English, and French.
Oooops…

LightRain (22:49:49) :
I also hear the other parties in the UK *ALL* agree on CO2 being the true cause of AGW. This is remarkable that one or more opposition parties don’t play the game politicians usually do and take an opposite stance for the votes. A terrible situation indeed.
UK Independence Party (UKIP)
Libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union.
http://www.ukip.org/
A bit disorganized at the moment, but will go from strength to strength.

“Pachauri shot his own foot with his defence of the IPCC report without checking background”
Not really, it was higher up and more to the centreline!

There’s a new novel just out by Ian McEwan (author of Atonement), called Solar. It satirizes the juggernaut that is the global warming industry. There’s a womanizing professor in there who is on gazillions of committees and has all sorts of conflict-of-interest issues, and is really more interested in profit for himself than any real or fictive global warming. Might remind readers slightly of Dr Pachauri.

Dr. Pachauri, a railway engineer by education, claimed that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035. This may be considered as a big mistake. However, compared with the wrong physical methods on which all IPCC reports and a lot of climatology-linked papers are based, Pachauri’s claim is a small sin only. The scandal is that a person like Dr. Pachauri who has no competence in physical and/or statistical climatology became Chairman of the IPCC. This is the main indication to me that the IPCC is a political instrument of the United Nations, rather than a scientific panel.
Generally, we have to recognize that climate science has been burdened by
several wrong physical concepts for decades. Here are various examples:
(1) The Revelle-Suess equation widely considered as the opening shot in the anthropogenic global warming “theory” is rather inappropriate. Revelle and Suess published it in the Swedish journal Tellus in 1957.
(2) The planetary radiative balance equation for the earth in the absence of its atmosphere is based on inappropriate physical considerations. It was published by Möller in Applied Optics in 1964 without any scientific justification of the assumptions on which this planetary radiation balance equation is based. This equation serves to calculate the global uniform temperature of T_e = 255 K using a planetary albedo of 0.3 and a planetary emissivity of 1. The difference between the globally averaged near-surface temperature of = 288 K and T_e is used to quantify the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect by – T_e = 33 K . The value of the planetary albedo, however, is based on satellite measurements, i.e., it also contains the effect of backward scattering by molecules, cloud and aerosol particles which do not exist in the case of a missing atmosphere. In his book entitled Climatic Change Budyko (1977) already mentioned that in the absence of an atmosphere the planetary albedo cannot be equal to the actual value of 0.33 (today 0.30). He assumed that prior to the origin of the atmosphere, the Earth’s albedo was lower and probably differed
very little from the moon’s albedo, which is equal to 0.07 (today 0.12 ). If
we assume the latter we will obtain 270 K for the moon and, hence, for the Earth. Reducing, in addition, the planetary emissivity by 5 percent ( 0.95 ) leads to 273 K . Results provided by remote sensing techniques at 2.77 cm wavelength, however, indicate that the average moon disk temperature is of about 213 K (Monstein, 2001). Thus, this concept of a planetary radiative balance in the absence of an atmosphere is physically inappropriate. The main assumptions are not fulfilled and the result obtained for the Moon is much higher than the observed value.
(3) In 1987 Ramanathan et al (Rev. Geophysics) argued:
“The incoming solar radiation, the reflected solar radiation, and the outgoing long-wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere have been determined by satellite radiation budget measurements, and the values inferred from these measurements are shown in Figure 2. The surface-atmosphere system emits to space roughly 236 W/m^2 , which balances the absorbed solar radiation. The emitted radiation is mostly contained in wavelengths longer than 4 micron , and hence it is referred to as long-wave, infrared (IR), or terrestrial radiation.
At a surface temperature of 288 K the long-wave emission by the surface is about 390 W/m^2, whereas the outgoing long-wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere is only 236 W/m^2 (see Figure 2). Thus the intervening atmosphere causes a significant reduction in the long-wave emission to space. This reduction in the long-wave emission to space is referred to as the greenhouse effect.”
This is clearly a misinterpretation of the global energy budget. All so-called global energy balance schemes like that of Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) and Trenberth et al. (2009) that can be found in the literature documents that the solar radiation absorbed be the Earth’s skin is partitioned into the fluxes of sensible (H) and latent heat (E) and a so-called infrared net radiation (DIR). These flux terms are heating the atmosphere from below. Also solar radiation is directly heating the atmosphere by absorption. The sum of the solar radiation absorbed by the Earth’s skin and the atmosphere is equal to the outgoing infrared radiation at the top of the atmosphere. Note that even an Earth’s surface temperature of 255 K and a fictive radiative temperature of the atmosphere of 255 K would provide DIR = 63 W/m^2 (see Trenberth et al., 2009) if the Earth is considered as a black body and an emissivity of the atmosphere of about 0.74 is assumed. This means that the Earth’s surface temperature cannot be linked to DIR which is a part of the energy flux budget at the Earth’s surface. Consequently, there is no space for an atmospheric greenhouse effect that would cause an increase of the Earth’s surface temperature.
(4) The so-called climate feedback equation, published by Schneider and Mass (1975) is inappropriate from a physical point of view (see Kramm and Dlugi, 2009, http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.2286). Nevertheless, this equation serves to calculate the Increase of the Earth’s surface temperature on the basis of the so-called net global anthropogenic radiative forcing (see the IPCC reports). This equation was used by many climate researchers like Manabe, Hansen, Dickinson, Ramanathan, and Schlesinger.
(5) The globally averaged near-surface temperature of about = 288 K has no physical meaning. Mann’s hockey stick-like temperature curve and the possible manipulation of data linked to the ClimateGate only serves to establish a measure of global climate change. Unfortunately, there is no global climate. This is a contradiction in terms.
(6) Climate predictions (or climate projections) have nothing to do with science because there are no observational data that allow to evaluate these predictions in the (broader) sense of a scientific verification. As shown by Kramm and Dlugi (2009), the uncertainty inherent in geophysical processes prevents to perform climate projections with a sufficient degree of accuracy.
(7) Obviously there is a misinterpretation of climate change. Climate change is not related to a slight variation of temperature or precipitation as claimed by climate researchers. Climate change can only be identified on the basis of two non-overlapping climate periods. This might be the case when a region has been changed from a subtropical climate to a tropical climate or vice
versa.
(8) The so-called global warming potential used in several IPCC reports has no physical meaning. The governing equations are the conservation equation of internal energy, and the transfer equation for radiative intensities. In both equations neither a global net anthropogenic radiative forcing nor global warming potential occurs. Even though these quantities are senseless, they are used by the IPCC, i.e., in the sense of policy-making.