In The News

[4wd]

In short: We can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide. We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models. Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in "radiative forcing" (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity.

The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F)

.

This is much lower than the IPCC's current best estimate, 3°C (5.4°F).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104.html

The scientists at the IPCC next year have to choose whether they will admit—contrary to what complex, unverifiable computer models indicate—that the observational evidence now points toward lukewarm temperature change with no net harm.

[Devonian]

http://online.wsj.co...1222227104.html

The scientists at the IPCC next year have to choose whether they will admit—contrary to what complex, unverifiable computer models indicate—that the observational evidence now points toward lukewarm temperature change with no net harm.

The scientists at the IPCC next year have to choose whether they will admit—contrary to what complex, unverifiable computer models indicate—that the observational evidence now points toward lukewarm temperature change with no net harm.

I'm sorry, I know I've been at these debates for more than a decade but I still don't get why anyone would take the word of a self appointed 'expert' over scientists in the field, who've done the studying and (like farmers rather than non farmers if you like) know their job because it is their job? Besides, and as I'm sure you choose not to point out, end points make poor predictors...

But, hey, maybe you'd employ me to run your farm? Me being, in that context, the self appointed expert and you being the expert in the field. Or, perhaps you know your job and would scoff at someone making out they were better....

Edited December 19, 2012 by Devonian

[loafer]

Given he has corrected statistical errors in IPCC releases, presumably written by 'experts', before and is deemed enough of an expert himself to be an IPCC reviewer, I find your knee-jerk refutation surprising.

[Methuselah]

No doubt the blogosphere (punctuated graffiti?) will be going into overdrive?

[Devonian]

Given he has corrected statistical errors in IPCC releases, presumably written by 'experts', before and is deemed enough of an expert himself to be an IPCC reviewer, I find your knee-jerk refutation surprising.

Anyone can be an IPCC 'expert reviewer'. You, me anyone. It isn't a scientific qualification, more a sign of a certain politics and mindset.

*

[UV-RAY]

Anyone can be an IPCC 'expert reviewer'. You, me anyone. It isn't a scientific qualification, more a sign of a certain politics and mindset.

*

What sort of scientific qualifications does one have to have in being the Chairman of the IPCC?

[Devonian]

What sort of scientific qualifications does one have to have in being the Chairman of the IPCC?

Not sure, you? Isn't being IPCC chairman part figurehead, part scientist, part diplomat?

[UV-RAY]

Well the current one isn't a scientist, which begs the question what does he know over me?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Nic Lewis seems ok, he's good with statistics and has been published.

With regard to the Matt Ridley blog, despite there being some truth to it, the fact that it's yet another blog piece by an oil industry representative means it's likely to be heavily biased and contain the usual denier misrepresentations, which it does. Your only ever going to get one side of the story at best with these kind of things.

By all means have a read of Nic Lewis' peer reviewed work, but also read up on other papers and other sources too.

[Devonian]

Well the current one isn't a scientist, which begs the question what does he know over me?

I don't know, what do you know?

Afaik the current IPCC Chair is a scientist.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Devonian

[loafer]

His academic qualifications are in Industrial Engineering and Economics, I believe.

I am sure he has developed expertise in climate science through his lengthy career path in the sector.

Edited December 19, 2012 by loafer

[Devonian]

His academic qualifications are in Industrial Engineering and Economics, I believe.

I am sure he has developed expertise in climate science through his lengthy career path in the sector.

You're making my point - non experts are indeed simply that. The IPCC chairman isn't an climate expert and he doesn't make out he is. He is as I described him and he speaks on behalf of the science and scientists.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Devonian

[BornFromTheVoid]

The current IPCC chairman is there due to lobbying from the US on behalf of ExxonMobil. The current chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri, was thought to be more oil industry friendly than the previous chairman Robert Watson.

So the sceptics certainly aren't in a position to complain about it.

[loafer]

@Devonian:

You're making my point - non experts are indeed simply that. The IPCC chairman isn't an climate expert and he doesn't make out he is. He is as I described him and he speaks on behalf of the science and scientists.

No, you have proven my point.

The IPCC chairman, and many of the "experts" quoted on here as the font of all knowledge on the subject, are not actually climate scientists by qualification, not least as climate science as a mainstream discipline is relatively recent.

That being a fact, I find it hard to reconcile your views in your earlier post;

I'm sorry' date=' I know I've been at these debates for more than a decade but I still don't get why anyone would take the word of a self appointed 'expert' over scientists in the field, who've done the studying and (like farmers rather than non farmers if you like) know their job because it [u']is their job? Besides, and as I'm sure you choose not to point out, end points make poor predictors...

But, hey, maybe you'd employ me to run your farm? Me being, in that context, the self appointed expert and you being the expert in the field. Or, perhaps you know your job and would scoff at someone making out they were better....

Indeed, I would contend that the views of Mr Lewis are as valid as many expressed as fact on here and do not deserve to be dismissed out of hand.

@BFTV;

The current IPCC chairman is there due to lobbying from the US on behalf of ExxonMobil. The current chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri, was thought to be more oil industry friendly than the previous chairman Robert Watson.

So the sceptics certainly aren't in a position to complain about it.

That's a new one on me...do you have any links with background info?

Edited December 19, 2012 by loafer

[Gray-Wolf]

Are we not all forgetting the rash of papers and reports , released since Aug, that point to warming being vastly underestimated by TAR4 and as an 'average' would more likely be expected to be at the upper limit, B.A.U. figure used in TAR4?

If you want the latest science I'd just keep up on the latest papers coming into print. All you can take from TAR5 for sure is that now scientists are 99% sure of the human element driving current climate change (up from the 90% of TAR4 and as high as we will ever see it go it being science?) as the rest has been superseded since it was accepted into the report. The report itself will still not include some of the data omitted from the last one casting doubt on it's usefulness as a guide? (would you use a guide as 'gospel' if you knew full well it lacked certain data?)

I have no doubt that the gentleman concerned has pulled up some bloopers but isn't that the job for reviewers? By the time we all see the final report such things will be removed but sadly , at the insistence of some world nations, so will other parts of sound science and data (as occurred with the hamstrung TAR4).

By the time we get to Summer 2013 I'm sure we will have much more info on change and by the time we get around to the Autumn AGU lectures TAR5 will be seen as unrepresentative of the science as we then see it.

As with the main body of the United Nations we see a lot of bluster but very little action where immediate action is required...... Ho Hum.

[BornFromTheVoid]

That's a new one on me...do you have any links with background info?

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/1940117.stm

http://www.newscient.../article/dn2191

The chairman doesn't conduct the actual scientific studies, I believe it's more of a overseer and organiser role. Arguing over his qualifications is kinda pointless imo.

Are we not all forgetting the rash of papers and reports , released since Aug, that point to warming being vastly underestimated by TAR4 and as an 'average' would more likely be expected to be at the upper limit, B.A.U. figure used in TAR4?

Agreed. Exactly why people should look at more than one source.

Edited December 19, 2012 by BornFromTheVoid

[loafer]

@BFTV - thanks - I was aware that they had lobbied for the removal of his predecessor - I wasn't aware they were believed to have chosen his replacement - any evidence, or just a leap of faith?

@GW - dismissing the new report before it is even published? You must really 'hate' the drafts!

[Gray-Wolf]

When you already know what the ommissions will be (even before the nations get at it) it kinda takes the shine off it L? I've not real trouble with other reports?

as it is even some of the science we get to read is already outdated when it comes into the public domain. If you think that the latest on Greenland has doubling every 4 years, and this trend accelerating, then most work on melt is already well out of kilter with the reality by the time it is compiled and peer reviewed? It is not a thing of chioce but a realtime observation.

[knocker]

The blog straight from the horses mouth so to speak with associated comments. One of them even comments.

The climate scandal has rounded the last corner to Reality:

“Truth is victorious, never untruth.â€

Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur’an 17.85

and numerous other scriptural verses.

Time for a very large drink methinks.

http://judithcurry.c...tivity-results/

Edited December 19, 2012 by knocker

[knocker]

NASA's Operation IceBridge Data Brings New Twist to Sea Ice Forecasting

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaice-forecasting.html

[4wd]

The blog straight from the horses mouth so to speak with associated comments. One of them even comments.

The climate scandal has rounded the last corner to Reality:

“Truth is victorious, never untruth.â€

Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur’an 17.85

and numerous other scriptural verses.

Time for a very large drink methinks.

http://judithcurry.c...tivity-results/

Her latest post is interesting too.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/19/climate-sensitivity-in-the-ar5-sod/#more-10669

JC summary: The leak of the SOD was a good thing; the IPCC still has the opportunity to do a much better job, and the wider discussion in the blogosphere and even the mainstream media places pressure on the IPCC authors to consider these issues; they can’t sweep them under the rug as in previous reports.

[4wd]

Richard Drake | December 19, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Reply

Dr Curry:

The leak of the SOD was a good thing; the IPCC still has the opportunity to do a much better job, and the wider discussion in the blogosphere and even the mainstream media places pressure on the IPCC authors to consider these issues; they can’t sweep them under the rug as in previous reports.

Leakers – keeping Climate Science honest since 17 November 2009.

[4wd]

Jim Cripwell | December 19, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Reply

Dr. Curry, you write “they can’t sweep them under the rug as in previous reports.â€

I wonder; maybe they have to try.

It seems to me that the IPCC has a major problem. They have 4 previous reports which, IMHO, have exaggerated the effect of AGW, and created CAGW. They cannot afford the now agree that these previous reports were wrong in the way they exaggerated climate sensitivity. However, there is now solid scientific evidence that the IPCC previous reports were, in fact, exaggerated. So the IPCC is faced with a choice. They can either admit that their previous reports were wrong in that their assessment exaggerated climate sensitivity; or they need to igore the solid science that now shows that the numbers were, in fact, exaggerated. How the IPCC is going to overcome this problem I have no idea.

It was Union General William Tecumseh Sherman who said, WTTE, “A good genreral gives his opponent two alternatives; both of which are badâ€. It seems to me that this applies to the IPCC. They have two alternatiuves; both of which are bad. They can either ignore the science which shows that their previous reports exaggerated the value of climate sensitivity; or they can produce a totally inadequate scientific report which deliberately ignores the science that shows that climate sensitivity was, in fact, exaggerated.

[jethro]

Tis the season to be jolly, fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la.....

[Gray-Wolf]

If folk are unhappy with the science of the draft TAR5 then why not search out more recent papers covering the same subject? Even insist Nic has a good long look at those too?

I'm sure many baths are going unchecked at their emptying and would guess that something is going out apart from dirty water?