Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[Reality Check]

Sure. Oh, no, wait, it's a non issue to those who already have their minds made up.

You asked for the ref, I provided it, and as you have seen, the request of the reviewer wasn't followed.

The request was quite reasonable: Don't bury contrary data, show it and talk about it.

The request wasa reasonable and not what you stated.

Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading. (Stephen McIntyre Reviewer’s comment ID #: 309-18)]

The divergence was not covered up. The fact that instrumental data was used from 1960 was made clear in the caption and legend. The divergence was discussed. Personally I think that the discussion of the divergence problem in the report would have been clearer if another diagram was added showing the actual divergence.

The graph in the IPCC TAR was misleading because the instrumental replacement was not mentioned. Not plotting invalid data is not misleading.

 

[mhaze]

"Not what I stated", no, I paraphrased to project a show of intent neither to cover up or to bury in footnotes. And such an intent would have been a good thing - as you concede.

In this context, consider - if they had been more forthright, there would be no legs to "hide the decline" assertions. But they were not, and so the assertions now have legs. And skepticisms (or what was formerly called derisively "Denialism") is now pandemic in the popular media. Like the old pop song, the IPCC is....

"so 1985"....

One thing that's immediately apparent in looking at the reviewer comments is a disregard for almost all requests of replacement of adjectives "loaded in the direction of certainty" with less certainty.

Thus I read WG1 as a scientifically oriented political advocacy document. There are of course other examples besides the one above discussed. However, we are in agreement that WG1 is more science oriented than the other sections. This does not make it good, or objective presentation.

One thing that I look for in a science article is a clear statement of the limits of knowledge gained by the work at hand. This includes the limits of the conclusions as to geography (regional) and timeframe. Ideally this should be in the form of a self criticism by the paper's authors. Of course, when we go from specific articles to a "review article", there is a tendency to generalize the conclusions.

The sections of the IPCC report may be viewed as review articles.

 

[BenBurch]

The level of scientific illiteracy I see here sometimes astounds me.

Suppose I have built a refrigeration machine. I am testing it. As I increase the voltage to the device I observe temperature on my mercury thermometer is dropping. As I get to -39 C, I observe that the temperature readings stop being representative, and I use another means to observe the temperature of my device.

When I write the paper on the effect I have discovered, I stop plotting the mercury thermometer at -38 C and start using the temperature from the other means (likely a thermocouple) in the plot. I color the two sources differently, and note this in the legend of my graph.

If I were to be judged by the standard the scientific illiterates here are promoting, I should be removed from my position for fraud and my invention thrown on the rubbish heap.

 

[mhaze]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmGDGw9LBF8&feature=related

 

[Reality Check]

"Not what I stated", no, I paraphrased to project a show of intent neither to cover up or to bury in footnotes. And such an intent would have been a good thing - as you concede.

My personal opinion is as I stated it:
Personally I think that the discussion of the divergence problem in the report would have been better if another diagram was added showing the actual divergence.
That is not a concession to the reviewer's comment which is about adding the post-1960 Briffa data to figure 6.10. That would be quite silly and rightly rejected. You should not add bad data to a graph that is already complex and crowded due to the use of multiple datasets.

Anyone who actually reads the chapter will read about the divergence problem - in the text not in a footnote.
Anyone who looks at the figure can see that the proxy data does not extend to 2000. They would need to look closely to see that the Briffa et. al. proxy data stops earlier than the others.
Anyone who looks at the table listing the datasets used can dee that the Briffa et. al. proxy data stops in 1960.

One thing that's immediately apparent in looking at the reviewer comments is a disregard for almost all requests of replacement of adjectives "loaded in the direction of certainty" with less certainty.

Who did the analysis that you are relying on for this conclusion?
If the science is fairly certain then using adjectives that convey that the science is fairly certain is appropriate.

Thus I read WG1 as a scientifically oriented political advocacy document. There are of course other examples besides the one above discussed.

A nice personal opinion.
I read WG1 as a scientifically oriented document of the status of the research into climate change science.

However, we are in agreement that WG1 is more science oriented than the other sections. This does not make it good, or objective presentation.

It is obvious that WG1 is more science oriented than the other reports. It is after all concerned with the physical basis of climate change science.
It is as good and objective as its authors made it.

One thing that I look for in a science article is a clear statement of the limits of knowledge gained by the work at hand. This includes the limits of the conclusions as to geography (regional) and timeframe. Ideally this should be in the form of a self criticism by the paper's authors. Of course, when we go from specific articles to a "review article", there is a tendency to generalize the conclusions.

The sections of the IPCC report may be viewed as review articles.

You need to read the AR4 report again. A large part of it is about the "limits of knowledge gained by the work at hand".
Or maybe your objection is that this statement is not "clear"?

 

[mhaze]

My personal opinion is as I stated it:
.....

A nice personal opinion.
....

Yep, we both have our respective opinions. I've qualified mine a bit by noting the tendency toward (inaccurately) reaching generalized conclusions which is inherent in the product of "review articles" in a field of science - I'll add further, that this tendency is much more pronounced in bad review articles.

And that's what we've got here, with the AR4 WG1 product. As I've noted, it's easy to bring in other evidence to support this point of view. But that would not change your opinion, and in many respects I'm sure that we have agreement on some fair fraction of the content.

....I read WG1 as a scientifically oriented document of the status of the research into climate change science.


It is obvious that WG1 is more science oriented than the other reports. It is after all concerned with the physical basis of climate change science.
It is as good and objective as its authors made it.

You need to read the AR4 report again. A large part of it is about the "limits of knowledge gained by the work at hand".
Or maybe your objection is that this statement is not "clear"?

<chuckle chuckle>

Let me see here. You're quoting as authoritative science something that's stripped just about all the math out?

That is exactly like comparing Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" with one of his published papers.

 

[Yoink]

The level of scientific illiteracy I see here sometimes astounds me.

There's no scientific illiteracy like willful scientific illiteracy.

 

[Reality Check]

<chuckle chuckle>

Let me see here. You're quoting as authoritative science something that's stripped just about all the math out?

That is exactly like comparing Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" with one of his published papers.

<chuckle chuckle>

You are wrong.
I am not quoting WG1 as authoritative science.

WG1 is scientifically oriented documention of the status of the research into climate change science. As you said - it is a review of the science. It is an authoritative review given that every effort has been made to use experts in the field.

 

[mhaze]

<chuckle chuckle>

You are wrong.
I am not quoting WG1 as authoritative science.

WG1 is scientifically oriented documention of the status of the research into climate change science. As you said - it is a review of the science. It is an authoritative review given that every effort has been made to use experts in the field.

Of course, it may have inaccuracies and bias. These would vary per chapter with the inclinations of the lead authors. For example, those might be inclined to not only quote from but over exaggerate the importance of their own work. They might be inclined to not give credence to opposing views. These respective review articles are assembled into a consistent compedium, with similar language throughout.

So it is an effort to create a consistent exposition of a belief set.

By any reasonable view, the fact that it is a production of the UN is highly negative, as opposed to it being produced for and by scientists. And irrespective of your views and mine, the subject of the biases, errors, and predudicial content of the IPCC AR4 is being discussed by the press - largely, I understand, in a negative fashion.

That's happening, like it or not. And it isn't going to play out along the lines of "Well the WG1 is good stuff but WG2 etc are trash". It'll be a broad brush. Which is not helped by the head of the IPCC, Pachauari, promoting his book about bopping a hundred bimbos, is it?

Suggestions for Awards:

Worst Non Fiction.

Worst Fiction.

 

[Reality Check]

Of course, it may have inaccuracies and bias. These would vary per chapter with the inclinations of the lead authors.

I agree - any report will have

• inaccuracies
• bias

These will vary vary per chapter with the inclinations of the lead authors.

So it is an effort to create a consistent exposition of a belief set.

No it is not.
The stated effort of the assessment reports is to create a consistent exposition of the scientific consensus on climate change. In that respect the AR reports succeed brilliantly. Like all big complex reports there are errors, bias, some outright lies, etc. The question is whether these defects affect the overall report. The answer is no judging by the number of reported defects in AR4 and the areas in which they appear.

By any reasonable view, the fact that it is a production of the UN is highly negative, as opposed to it being produced for and by scientists. And irrespective of your views and mine, the subject of the biases, errors, and predudicial content of the IPCC AR4 is being discussed by the press - largely, I understand, in a negative fashion.

The problem is that there is no way for all of the climate scientists in the world to produce such a report without some coordinating body. By any reasonable view, the UN is an obvious choice for that body.

If the report was produced only for scientists then there would be no point in doing it. That is what journals are for. A purpose of the report is to show the scientific consensus on climate change. That allows decisions to be made (and that is where the politics comes in). That in turn means that the report has to be accessible to more than just scientists, i.e. lots of explanations and a bit of dumbing down for politicians.

The press can discuss this as much as they like. That is their job.

That's happening, like it or not. And it isn't going to play out along the lines of "Well the WG1 is good stuff but WG2 etc are trash". It'll be a broad brush.

What is happening is small potaotes.
Nothing that has been reported affects the science in WG1.
Most of WG2 etc. are still correct - they are not trash (just trashy ).

And it is going to play out along the lines of
"Well of the 1000's of assertions in the AR4, a handful of assertions are false/errors/mistakes/blunders/frauds/lies/etc. So what?".

 

[mhaze]

....
The stated effort of the assessment reports is to create a consistent exposition of the scientific consensus on climate change. In that respect the AR reports succeed brilliantly......

As I recall the charter documents it is to do as you describe for the "man made causes of climate change".

That about sums it up nicely doesn't ti?

Wait....there is a little problem with that....

 

[Reality Check]

As I recall the charter documents it is to do as you describe for the "man made causes of climate change".

That about sums it up nicely doesn't ti?

Wait....there is a little problem with that....

As I recall there are no "charter documents" for the IPCC.

Wait....there is a little problem with that.... and your post

There is the resolution that in 1988 told the IPCC what to do

Requests the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological
Organization and the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment
Programme, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, immediately to initiate action leading, as soon as possible, to a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to:

(a) The state of knowledge of the science of climate and climatic
change;

(b) Programmes and studies on the social and economic impact of climate change, including global warming;

(c) Possible response strategies to delay, limit or mitigate the impact
of adverse climate change;

(d) The identification and possible strengthening of relevant existing
international legal instruments having a bearing on climate;

(e) Elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention
on climate;

Nothing about the scientific consensus on "man made causes of climate change".

There is the recent Statement on IPCC principles and procedures PDF and there may be previous statements.
Nothing about the scientific consensus on "man made causes of climate change".

 

[Geckko]

As I recall there are no "charter documents" for the IPCC.

Wait....there is a little problem with that.... and your post

There is the resolution that in 1988 told the IPCC what to do

Nothing about the scientific consensus on "man made causes of climate change".

There is the recent Statement on IPCC principles and procedures PDF and there may be previous statements.
Nothing about the scientific consensus on "man made causes of climate change".

In fairness, c, d, and e all infer the anthropogenic perspective.

 

[mhaze]

As I recall there are no "charter documents" for the IPCC.

Wait....there is a little problem with that.... and your post

There is the resolution that in 1988 told the IPCC what to do

Nothing about the scientific consensus on "man made causes of climate change".

There is the recent Statement on IPCC principles and procedures PDF and there may be previous statements.
Nothing about the scientific consensus on "man made causes of climate change".

The IPCC Mission Statement states in part:

"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change"

So my assertion is in error, if you want to consider "man made" as different than "human-induced".

As for the existence of or not of a charter, you are surely wrong on this. Charter refers to the corporate formation documents, including in this case for a non profit. It's not a point worth digging into, but a quick look on google shows numerous references to "IPCC Charter".

Loosely defined, that would be the same as purpose or mission. But anyone in business knows "Charter" has specific legal meanings when applied to a corporate entity. That's what we've got here.

Wait....Human induced and man made are really the same are they not? So what I said was correct. The formal, explicit mission of the IPCC is NOT TO LOOK UNBIASED FOR THE CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE. It is to look for human-induced causes.

And then, to find them.

Bias, clearly stated in the formation documents.

Unscience. Unscience clearly used for advocacy, political purposes, private and public schemes for massive taxation and control, and public indoctrination and propaganda.[FONT=&quot]

Evidence? Want to look at public speeches and assertions by IPCC Chairmen?


[/FONT]Climate Götterdämmerung

The global-warming thrill ride looks to be coming to an end, undone by the same politically motivated serial exaggeration and moral preening that discredited previous apocalypses....

.....The next frontier is likely to be a fresh debate about basic climate sensitivity itself. There have been several recent peer-reviewed papers suggesting much lower climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases than the IPCC “consensus” computer models predict. And alternative explanations for observed climate change in the Arctic and elsewhere, such as shifts in ocean currents and wind patterns, should receive a second look.

Dissenters who pointed out these and other flaws in the IPCC consensus were demonized as deniers and ignored by the media, but they are now vindicated. ​

 

[mhaze]

Hey, I've found someone who defends the IPCC!



Not everyone calls for the IPCC's imminent demise.


Jeff Price.....a lead author for IPCC reports released in 2001 and 2007, argues that the IPCC already has rules that, if more rigorously enforced, would reduce the already small likelihood of specious data finding their way into IPCC assessments.

Q. Who exactly is Jeff Price?

A. Managing Director for Adaptation for the World Wildlife Fund.

So a managing director of WWF, the source of boatloads of specious data finding it's way into IPCC assessments, argues that IPCC rules, if more rigorously enforced, would reduce the "already small likelihood of specious data finding their way into IPCC assessemnts".
Ah, yes, our friends at the WWF. A member of my family subscribed to their little monthly magazine for numerous years.

Hehehehe....it's very, very,....shall we say......truthy?

Hey, JEFF PRICE! Helllllloooooo! How about you just keeping your own garbage out?

 

[Yoink]

In fairness, c, d, and e all infer the anthropogenic perspective.

No, they don't. Even if climate change were entirely a natural process, that wouldn't mean that it was impossible (or, necessarily, undesirable) for humans to take measures to combat it.

A forest fire can be an entirely natural process; that doesn't mean that it's impossible for you to take measures to stop it burning down your house.

 

[Reality Check]

The IPCC Mission Statement states in part:

"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change"

So my assertion is in error, if you want to consider "man made" as different than "human-induced".

Link to the official IPCC Mision Statement please (not a web site, a copy of the offical document).

However you were taking about a charter and now you are talking about a mission statement. There is a difference:

• A charter lists the purposes for setting up an organization. It is not written by the organization.
• A mission statement is a statement by the organization about its understanding of it role. It can change as the role chnages.

I do know that the IPCC did have an statement to that effect on an older version of their About web page (also in a PDF version of the page).
Don't you find it strange for a AGW-biased organization (in your opinion) to water down the language?
Especially when the scientific evidence and concensus is in favour of AGW?

In a way you are correct: The author of the original web page (in existence from about 1999 to 2007) assumed that there was evidence for human-induced climate change.

 

[BenBurch]

...
In a way you are correct: The author of the original web page (in existence from about 1999 to 2007) assumed that there was evidence for human-induced climate change.

Which is like assuming that there is evidence for evolution; It is the right thing to assume, but might not be politically correct if you are trying to convince honest people that don't believe it yet or to placate people who are too stupid to ever look beyond their religious belief that it is not true.

 

[mhaze]

Link to the official IPCC Mision Statement please (not a web site, a copy of the offical document).

However you were taking about a charter and now you are talking about a mission statement. There is a difference:

• A charter lists the purposes for setting up an organization. It is not written by the organization.
• A mission statement is a statement by the organization about its understanding of it role. It can change as the role chnages.

I do know that the IPCC did have an statement to that effect on an older version of their About web page (also in a PDF version of the page).
Don't you find it strange for a AGW-biased organization (in your opinion) to water down the language?
Especially when the scientific evidence and concensus is in favour of AGW?

In a way you are correct: The author of the original web page (in existence from about 1999 to 2007) assumed that there was evidence for human-induced climate change.

You are correct, it was in an earlier version of the website. I'm sure that can be accessed through archive.org, or one of another methods.

As for your other comments, I'm not sure what to make of them. They are unclear. But a comment.

Look at the changes in ALLEGED climate sensitivity (or sea level rise) from the 1995 report, to the 2007 report.



I'm sure you are familiar with the severe decreases in estimates of sea level rises and confidence levels by the IPCC over the same time period, if you are not, we can easily reference it. Basically, it was from 20 some feet to less than a foot over a hundred years.

Actual evidence moved both in a much smaller direction.

Were the climate alarmists and their fantasy world of nightmare scenaris slowly being bottled up, a process which has now reached the end point?

It's time to take the issues of heat waves, droughts, flooding, sea level rises, islands vanishing, ice caps melting, bug invasions, giant snake invasions, pandemics, more intense hurricanes, African disasters, rain forest depletion, and all the other nonsense out of the sphere of alarmist wackos.

Not that anyone's going to pay much attention to it anyway.

Your guys have jumped the shark.

 

[Reality Check]

You are correct, it was in an earlier version of the website. I'm sure that can be accessed through archive.org, or one of another methods.

As for your other comments, I'm not sure what to make of them. They are unclear. But a comment.

Look at the changes in ALLEGED climate sensitivity (or sea level rise) from the 1995 report, to the 2007 report.
...snipped stuff in a similar vein...

That is the way science works - it continually refines its theories using updated data.

To make my comments

Don't you find it strange for a AGW-biased organization (in your opinion) to water down the language?
Especially when the scientific evidence and concensus is in favour of AGW?

clearer:

• Your position seems to be that the IPCC was set up to start with the assumption that there is global warming and that GW is man-made. Thus the IPCC is biased in that it will never consider that GW is not man-made.
• If that is your position then this assumnption would be documented in the UN resolution setting up the IPCC (but it is not) or elsewhere.
• The IPCC web site did have a page that stated
  "The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change".
  That could be evidence of AGW-bias.
• The page now does not mention "human-induced" climate change.

That seems strange to me for an AGW-biased (according to you) organization.
Is the removal of "human-induced" from the page evidence that the IPCC is no longer AGW-biased?
It is even stranger considering that the concensus among climate scientists who have considered the evidence for AGW is in favour of AGW. One would expect an AGW-biased organization to state this in their mission statement.