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.
“IPCC may be more relevant by producing more special reports on topics that are new and controversial.”
I take that as a statement of fact that the IPCC has been and will be incapable of producing anything other than that which is “new and controversial” and we all know it. Since it would be too difficult to disband it, it would be marked as a rogue entity whose remarks should be ignored.
The IPCC should look at What Went Wrong in Spain, with the Fisker (and others), with under-performing windmills, etc.
The argument of the IPCC was always that current warming cannot be explained without assuming radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic CO2.
As it hasn’t warmed for 17 years, the warming now looks very much like earlier warming coming out of the LIA, pre 1950 when anthropogenic CO2 was not a factor.
In other words, the entire basis for the founding statement of the IPCC has fallen away.
The IPCC should therefore not be reformed but simply be dissolved and defunded.
lsvalgaard says:
The IPCC has a party line?
You disagree?
——–
Tell us what you believe the party line is ….
It’s a pity the KNMI didn’t take the opportunity to be a tad more specific and list a few of the more ‘controversial’ subjects. Presumably the role of the sun, EUV, clouds might have been suggested.
An opportunity lost ?
HenryP says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:56 pm
you have to be kidding me
Take it up with the authors of the paper. They say:
“O3 can act as a greenhouse gas just as CO2 can, but its decrease in density after 1979 (presumably due to an increase in man-made halocarbon emissions into the atmosphere) would lead to less radiative cooling, not more, and during daytime its radiative heating effect would far outweigh any cooling effect”
Scarface says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Why try so obvious to hijack this post.
Just pointing out that according to Crock the role of CO2 is not controversial. Apparently many commenters disagree with Crock’s post. It is they who hijack the post.
the role of the sun will finally be studied and, heaven forbid, mentioned by the IPCC?
It was studied, mentioned, and rejected by the IPCC. Granted that they did not study all the dubious claims ever made, but concentrated on the one they thought had the most adherents.
Mr Bliss says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Tell us what you believe the party line is ….
Study the IPCC volumes and ye shall find. But, tell us if you think there is no ‘part line’.
party line
In the absence of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute offering any specific suggestions, may I offer one instead. The self disbandment of the IPCC or the replacement of godfather (Pachuari) with Judith Curry.
lsvalgaard says:
Study the IPCC volumes and ye shall find.
—
Why would studying the IPCC volumes tell me what you believe the party line is?
Are you suggesting that the IPCC tells you what to believe?
Mr Bliss says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Why would studying the IPCC volumes tell me what you believe the party line is?
Are you suggesting that the IPCC tells you what to believe?
It will tell you what their party line is. Believing that is our problem, not mine. Or, perhaps you will claim that there is no party line. That again is your problem, not mine.
Of course the IPCC has a party line. It can be summarized as this:
The climate models are right, because there is a scientific consensus that warming is human-induced by CO2.
The physical and real world is wrong, because it does not support the scientific consensus. People who do not support the consensus are heretics.
It is permissible and even admirable to manipulate, hide and even torture scientific data from the real world, use dubious statistics, use selection bias, and presents results in a misleading manner, as long as it is in favour of the scientific consensus.
Exactly, important points in the post. Limiting the climate-study to human influence, ignoring the natural variability is one of the major failures of the IPCC.
the attached pdf is worth a read:
” The unfortunate mistakes in the Fourth Assessment, and the delayed response to these, unveiled serious vulnerabilities in the organisation, the process of producing reports, the perceived integrity of the people involved and the communication.”
The problem however is that the way how this work was done until now has indeed to my understanding limited the progress of climate science.
The big number of low quality models with projections outside of real data do not add to the climate understanding, they only repeat again and again that essential parts are missing, but obviously nobody listens.
Therefore I am not convinced it is worth to try to reform IPCC at all. It is after all not a scientific organisation but a very costly gatherer of data with very limited success in the quality of data gathering.
Potentially there are much better ways to spend the money – for instance feed hungry people – and simply scrap the IPCC and make the $$ savings.
This my 2 cents.
lsvalgaard says:
It will tell you what their party line is.
—–
But it was you who brought up the concept of an IPCC party line, not me. It shouldn’t be a problem for you to indicate what that line is.
And then you say:
perhaps you will claim that there is no party line. That again is your problem, not mine.
—
You make an asssumption without evidence, then tell me I have a problem 🙂
As for your problem – that seems to be giving a straight answer to my straight question – here it is again:
Tell us what you believe the party line is …….?
@lsvalgaard in several posts
Leif, you imply that Crok says carbon dioxide should not be studied further but I can’t find your basis for that claim. Perhaps this is your basis: Crok says, “The (almost) obsession of IPCC with greenhouse forcing has greatly limited progress in climate science in my opinion”.
The IPCC role is defined as studying “human induced” global warming. Humans, 1) emit carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels and making cement etc, 2) cut down trees/undergrowth that convert carbon dioxide to carbon and oxygen, 3) pump ground water from no or slow-to-recharge aquifers to irrigate food and fodder crops and 4) emit a few other minor chemicals. IPCC ignore additional water vapor added to the atmosphere and almost ignore ground cover effects. That essentially leaves only carbon dioxide as the primary greenhouse gas to cause forcing.
I have examined a very large amount of climate science data and find only natural cycles as causes of observed global warming in 1980 – 1996. Based on available data, the impact of carbon dioxide on that period of observed warming is small, if any. Certainly in the past 16 years, the impact of carbon dioxide emissions has had no or very limited impact on the global temperature. Having lived in Holland and worked with really good Dutch technical folks in Holland and around the world, I think that Crok’s point is that IPCC should forget about carbon dioxide being the root cause of global warming and do much more work on natural cycles as the root cause of the observed global warming.
Personally, I don’t think that natural cycles are controversial but the Mann’s and Hansen’s of the world might. To get a better focus on reality, IPCC should add geologists to their mix of technical professionals.
Mr Bliss says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:48 pm
You make an asssumption without evidence, then tell me I have a problem
scf has no such problem [I concur with him, perhaps you do not]:
scf says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:37 pm
Of course the IPCC has a party line. It can be summarized as this:
[see his comment]
@svalgaard your statement that the IPCC does not say anything controversial is followed by a confirmation that the IPCC indeed said some controversial things.
lsvalgaard says:
Of course the IPCC has a party line. It can be summarized as this:
[see his comment]
—
That wasn’t too difficult to say, was it?
Well, it wasn’t too difficult for SCF to say, just a shame you needed someone else to say it for you…
Steven Devijver says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:55 pm
@svalgaard your statement that the IPCC does not say anything controversial is followed by a confirmation that the IPCC indeed said some controversial things.
Perhaps you should this thread again. Crock say that IPCC should pay more attention to things that are controversial [this does not mean that they don’t mention some things that are, just not enough attention]; instead IPCC concentrates on CO2 [and they can hardly pay any more attention to that than they already do] and Crock recognizes that and seems not to contradict that what IPCC pay attention to is not controversial, i.e. that the role of CO2 is not controversial.
Mr Bliss says:
July 5, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Well, it wasn’t too difficult for SCF to say, just a shame you needed someone else to say it for you…
the shame is on you for not knowing that there was a party line in the first place, but now that you have been told, perhaps it is time to stop whining based on former ignorance.
lsvalgaard says:
the shame is on you for not knowing that there was a party line in the first place
—
An assumption without evidence – don’t let it become a habit
Mr Bliss says:
July 5, 2013 at 2:11 pm
“the shame is on you for not knowing that there was a party line in the first place”
An assumption without evidence
The evidence is there for all to see:
Mr Bliss says: July 5, 2013 at 12:32 pm
The IPCC has a party line?
You were perhaps a bit economical with the truth, “don’t let it become a habit”
Here are some your ways out
1) You ‘misspoke’
2) You forgot a \sarc tag
3) You try to yank my chain
4) you can, undoubtedly, come up with more invalid excuses [I’m waiting with bated breath…]
The natural variability is not time concurrent in various location around the globe; it is often grossly reduced by the ‘global’ temperature averaging.
Historic regional data (such as the CET) give far clearer picture.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
The bottom line is simple, no AGW no IPCC and they know that full well
These turkeys are not about to vote for Christmas.
They said “and”: “IPCC may be more relevant by producing more special reports on topics that are new and controversial.” I could not tell you what topics in climate science are new and controversial, but I’m pretty sure CO2 as the causal agent for climate change is not one.