(via Tom Nelson) Ken Caldeira resigns as IPCC lead author, saying:
“…it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices…”
New Directions for the Intergovernmental Climate Panel – NYTimes.com
Clearly, at the outset, the early IPCC reports played an important role showing that there was a high degree of consensus around the reality and basic science of human-induced climate change. It was important to show that, despite a few climate-science deniers, the fundamental science was well-accepted by the mainstream scientific community.
But can anybody point to any important positive outcomes resulting from the IPCC AR4 process? [AR4 is shorthand for the panel’s fourth assessment, which was published in 2007.] Is there reason to expect a greater positive impact from the IPCC AR5 process? [This is the forthcoming fifth assessment of climate science and policies, coming in 2013 and 2014]
I am all for scientific reviews and assessments, and I think the multi-model comparisons reviewed by the IPCC have been especially useful. However, it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices…
(As an aside, I recently resigned as a lead author of an IPCC AR5 chapter simply because I felt I had more effective ways of using the limited amount of time that I have to engage in scientific activities. My resignation was made possible because I believe that the chapter team that I was part of was on the right track and doing an excellent job without my contribution. Had I had a scientific criticism of my chapter team, you can be assured that I would have stayed involved. So, my resignation was a vote of confidence in my scientific peers, not a critique. It is just not clear to me that, at this point, working on IPCC chapters is the most effective use of my time.
His bio page says:
Ken Caldeira is a staff scientist at the Carnegie Institution, where his job is “to make important scientific discoveries.” He also serves as a professor (by courtesy) in the Stanford University Department of Environmental Earth System Science. Caldeira is a lead author for the upcoming IPCC AR5 report and was coordinating lead author of the oceans chapter for the 2005 IPCC report on Carbon Capture and Storage. He was a co-author of the 2010 US National Academy America’s Climate Choices report. He participated in the UK Royal Society geoengineering panel in 2009 and ocean acidification panel in 2005. He was a lead author of the 2007 U.S. “State of the Carbon Cycle Report. Caldeira was invited by the National Academy of Sciences Ocean Studies Board to deliver the 2007 Roger Revelle Lecture, “What Coral Reefs Are Dying to Tell Us About CO2 and Ocean Acidification.” In 2010, Caldeira was elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union.
As I stated in an earlier post / comment I believe that the physics of this (Robert Brown’s comment) should be moved to the forefront of WUWT for review for all to see. It will pass or fail.
As far as Caldeira is concerned, I think he is jumping ship. Let him respond in writing on WUWT and then we will know where he stands. As far as the IPCC is concerned, it.is …….. and cannot be redeamed. The trust is gone and they may with the blessings of Cadleira simply move in another direction for 30 years and claim that new evidence (suggests, shows, points to, reveals, etc.) that CO2 is causing CAGC (catastrophic anthropagenic global cooling) so we must have massive taxes on energy, Same song and dance, but to a different tune.
I would not trust Caldiera or the IPCC, but let Caldeira have his say. If, in many years, he can gain trust then it will be welcome. Time will tell. The clock is ticking so make a move. Ship jumping should only occur once in a lifetime in one’s life. Make a stand on principle and not on govt .grants. The truth will set you free.
Let Robert Brown get the exposure of light. At my first look he seems to make sense with the physics. Light on the subject will cure any virus.
kim says:
December 22, 2011 at 10:28 am
“He’ll get respect, rgb, when he admits he’s changed his mind. As it is, he slinks.”
Yes he slinks but I don’t think a confession at this point is going to earn him any respect. At best it would put him in a position where he might earn some respect should he advance science in the future. As it stands now he retarded science and is lying about it. If he recants the lie he’s still a liar and a retarder of science. Only by building a track record of honesty and advancing the art may he gain a measure of respect. ‘Fessing up is the place to begin the process however.
“She’s dead, Jim.”
If Caldiera is interested in more productive uses of his time I would suggest taking a long vacation from climate science and perhaps starting a greenhouse growing hydroponic strarberries where he can, through practical experience, learn about the greenhouse effect and the positive botanical consequences of elevated CO2. Or maybe panning for gold in the Yukon or crab fishing in the Bering Sea. Or wearing an orange jumpsuit and picking up trash alongside the road. Virtually anything would be a more productive use of his time.
Bruce Cobb says:
December 22, 2011 at 1:52 pm
“Hmmm…. Some seem to want to give Caldeira the benefit of the doubt, hoping against hope that a leopard can indeed change his spots. But, his own words argue against that naive hope.
He believes there is a “high degree of consensus around the reality and basic science of human-induced climate change.” He also believes that “despite a few climate-science deniers, the fundamental science was well-accepted by the mainstream scientific community.” Those are not the words of someone starting to show cracks in his Belief system. ”
Those are the words of someone who wants to continue working as an atmospheric physicist. The only climate scientists who can afford to recant are those that are tenured or those that are retired. Or those that are independently wealthy or those that for some other reason aren’t worried about a career dereailed through being blackballed by “the team” for turning traitor against “the cause” .
I don’t really blame the guy. I’d probably do the same thing in his shoes although I did quit a job repairing televisions while working my way through college because the shop rules were designed to maximize repair costs instead of minimizing them and I felt bad about being part of that. I got a job fixing industrial electronic control systems instead in order to pay rent and tuition.
eyesonu says:
December 22, 2011 at 3:38 pm
“Let Robert Brown get the exposure of light. At my first look he seems to make sense with the physics. Light on the subject will cure any virus.”
If he seems to make sense it’s because you don’t know buzzwords from buzzard droppings.
He made at least two glaring errors that a precocious fifth grader would have corrected. One is the notion that there is any significant latent heat released by water vapor at altitudes between 20,000 and 40,000 meters and the other is that a volume of warm air rising warms the air around it as it cools down. These are just ridiculously wrong.
This is something sort of out of Chaos Theory, but seems to make some sense:
http://jalopnik.com/5870428/59+year+old-woman-who-never-held-a-hockey-stick-wins-a-truck-with-this-amazing-shot?tag=ford-f_150
I wonder whether Michael Mann’s H.S. (Hockey Schtick) can be so accurate.
I was wrong about the series of annual Climategate releases I predicted in another thread–at least 40 if each contains 5,000 emails from the “stash” of 220,000.
A better tact would be for FOIA to release a fresh Climategate set of emails each quarter, which should be enough time to assimilate the contents of each. With four Climategate releases a year, it would keep everybody busy (the “climate realist analysts” on one side and the “warmistas” on the other scattering for cover and denying the truth) for oh, about 10 years or so.
The non-realist side of the issue would be in an uproar for these 10 years; how delicious that would be.
(Oh, how I like that term “non-realists” is descrbing “Warmistas” (a term I don’t really care for since it hasn’t ‘s been a while since it has been warming). So let these “climate scientists” call those who are trying to accurately apply science to the topic anything they like, but “Nonrealists” is my new, accurate term for them.)
(corrected)
I was wrong about the series of annual Climategate releases I predicted in another thread–at least 40 if each contains 5,000 emails from the “stash” of 220,000.
A better tact would be for FOIA to release a fresh Climategate set of emails each quarter, which should be enough time to assimilate the contents of each. With four Climategate releases a year, it would keep everybody busy (the “climate realist analysts” on one side and the “warmistas” on the other scattering for cover and denying the truth) for oh, about 10 years or so.
The non-realist side of the issue would be in an uproar for these 10 years; how delicious that would be.
(Oh, how I like that term “non-realists” is descrbing “Warmistas” (a term I don’t really care for since it hasn’t been warming for quite some time). So let these “climate scientists” call those who are trying to accurately apply science to the topic anything they like, but “Nonrealists” is my new, accurate term for them.)
Dave Springer says:
December 22, 2011 at 4:24 pm
==================
Dave, if a smack down were due, I just wanted it done at the top of a leading post and not hidden at the end of one a couple of days old preceding the longest holiday period of the year.
I haven’t reread Robert Browns post yet and probably would not have the knowledge to contest any errors but a WUWT review most certainly would.
Thanks for the reply.
“buzzwords from buzzard droppings”? Got it! 🙂
I just finished a reread of Robert Brown’s post / comment. I stand by my previous comments. A couple of areas that were a little ‘grey to me’ but may reflect more on me than the content.
@ur momisugly Robert Brown, where is: “His own work, as noted carefully above … ” quoted in your post that I could review?
@ur momisugly Rocky Road
Higher ranking officers of the CAGW Brigade:
Frauds / Liers / Criminals / Propagandists / MSM / Climate Scientists / Academics / Fools?
Lower order ranking:
Believers / Nonrealists / Alarmists / Warmista / Sheeple / Eco-fanatics / Extremists / Fools?
Dave Springer – you are the savant of graceless, mean-spirited, insult. Good thing for you the age of dueling is past. This is a blog! It’s perfectly all right to headline research that hasn’t been peer-reviewed. Even off-the-cuff research. You arrogant twit. Go peer-review yourself.
This site is populated by idiots.
You all have access to computers and the internet – so do a little research. Ken Caldeira just gave a press conference at this month’s AGU Fall Conference with Jim Hansen, Eelco Rohling. Your silly little theories are 180 degrees from the truth.
Watch the You Tube video of the press conference and LEARN something.
AGU FM11 – Paleoclimate record points toward potential rapid climate changes
Dave,
I understand the concept of adiabatic cooling. But I’ve not seen data on alterations to the conventional adiabatic calculations as affected by upper level horizontal shear (which obviously affects mixing) and the relative abundance of these situations, i.e. (for one) do ocean temperatures affect wind speed causing an increase/decrease in wind shear?
Kevin, I’m no idiot. Explain why there is zero warming in the SH since 1996 and the NH has been slightly warming since then if Hansen’s aerosols are somehow responsible for the 12 year general hiatus of accelerated global warming? Explain HOW aerosols generated mainly in the NH (much from China) can have most of their effect in the SH? Hmmm? It’s impossible He can’t explain it and neither can his models.
@ur momisugly Robert Brown, where is: “His own work, as noted carefully above … ” quoted in your post that I could review?
Where are you?
Please respond.
Caldeira, noting coverage of his remarks on Dot Earth here and elsewhere, offered an expanded note tonight on his ideas for improving the climate panel: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/new-directions-for-the-intergovernmental-climate-panel/?comments#permid=20
Mike M – if you were part of the 95% percent here who thought Caldeira was jumping ship, switching sides, covering his ass, etc., etc – then, yes, you are an idiot. Caldeira’s views on the science of climate change should be well known by now. His thoughts on skeptics are also well known. They haven’t changed. As he said in response to the furor on sites such as this over the past few days:
These silly uninformed theories betray a complete and utter disdain for facts – because the facts are easy to find.
With an as yet undetermined appendage Caldiera writes:
“My guess is that most of the key points that scientists will feel important to communicate five or ten years from now will be largely the same as what scientists would like to communicate right now. Therefore, future editions of this book could consist of relatively minor updating, pointing to important new literature and important new scientific discoveries.”
No Ken, future editions will carry on the tradition of backpedalling from the mistaken predictions of previous editions. That’s why we look so forward to them and were so disappointed that you won’t be sticking around to do your share of inglorious dissembling.
The cool think though is, Ken, that the internet never forgets. This will haunt you to your grave.
William Abbott says:
December 23, 2011 at 4:02 am
“Dave Springer – you are the savant of graceless, mean-spirited, insult. Good thing for you the age of dueling is past. This is a blog! It’s perfectly all right to headline research that hasn’t been peer-reviewed. Even off-the-cuff research. You arrogant twit. Go peer-review yourself.”
I always love it when someone frowns upon insults and then does his best to make one.
ROFLMAO@U
William Abbott says:
December 23, 2011 at 4:02 am
“Dave Springer – you are the savant of graceless, mean-spirited, insult.”
I’m from New York. It’s what we do. [shrug]
eyesonu says:
December 22, 2011 at 10:13 pm
“Dave, if a smack down were due, I just wanted it done at the top of a leading post and not hidden at the end of one a couple of days old preceding the longest holiday period of the year.”
Leading with your chin isn’t usually a good idea. The place for mistakes is in the trash bin not the front page. The front page should be for well vetted material.
Kevin O’Neill says:
December 24, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Caldeira’s views on the science of climate change should be well known by now. His thoughts on skeptics are also well known. They haven’t changed. As he said in response to the furor on sites such as this over the past few days:
… I was surprised when the last remnants of the climate-science denial team erupted with glee in the blogosphere at my remarks on the IPCC made on Dot Earth earlier this week.
========================
He is really worse than we thought!
Thanks for the tip.
Dave Springer says:
December 25, 2011 at 8:14 am
eyesonu says:
December 22, 2011 at 10:13 pm
“Dave, if a smack down were due, I just wanted it done at the top of a leading post and not hidden at the end of one a couple of days old preceding the longest holiday period of the year.”
Leading with your chin isn’t usually a good idea. The place for mistakes is in the trash bin not the front page. The front page should be for well vetted material.
=====================
It would be well vetted here.