Political Policies trumps Science with the IPCC

Two more climatologists have abandoned connections with the IPCC over it's political agenda. Dr. Robert Stavins, an IPCC chapter Co-Coordinating Lead Author and Dr. Richard Tol have decided the IPCC is a political organization and not a scientific one.

Dr. Judith Curry who was also lead author for the IPCC also at one time has distanced herself from them over political and governmental interference in the scientific discussion

Climate Etc has excerpts from both Dr. Tol's and Dr Stavins' essays on why they feel the IPCC policies are more political than scientific. Dr Curry's assessment of the WG3 report is particularly eloquent

http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/26/stavins-and-tol-on-ipcc-wg3/

Upon reflecting on the 3 IPCC reports, a picture is emerging of a very complex climate system linked to complex environmental issues and socioeconomic problems. True to its classic wicked messiness, there is no unambiguous way to separate natural from anthropogenic climate change, or to separate climate change impacts from other confounding factors, or to separate the solutions from the broader issues of population increase, underdevelopment, mismanagement, and corrupt governments.

 

Utter bollocks. I'm surprised she could write that with a straight face.

And they need to be separated ... why, exactly? So that we can address all those others without addressing climate change too?

 

so exactly what were the natural factors that caused the Roman warm period that occurred from 250 BC to 400 AD. Then show that the same factors are not are not the predominant factors causing a rise in temperature in the current warming phase

one example

The CAGW people claimed there would be millions of climate refugees because of rising sea levels and gave specific examples using some Pacific atolls . Atolls are not affected by seal level changes but are affected by over fishing and depletion of their water lens by over population

Got anything to add to the conversation of Dr Tol's and Dr Stavins' criticism of the IPCC or just more ad ad hominem against the messengers? Debating against someone whose only arguments are logical fallacy is fun but not very challenging. An original thought from the one of CAGW supporters would be a refreshing change

 

That wasn't global, but confined to the North Atlantic region primarily. Therefore we can chalk it up to natural variability.

Sure.
Lovejoy, S. "Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming." Climate Dynamics (2013): 1-13.

"We statistically formulate the hypothesis of warming through natural variability by using centennial scale probabilities of natural fluctuations estimated using scaling, fluctuation analysis on multiproxy data. We take into account two nonclassical statistical features—long range statistical dependencies and “fat tailed” probability distributions (both of which greatly amplify the probability of extremes). Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels >99 %."

And if that's not good enough for you I've got half a dozen others.

Atolls are not affected by sea level changes? Citation, please.

Please point out where I have used an ad-hominem against Tol, Stavins, or Curry. Because I think you're just plain wrong. Again.

I guess that explains why you've never beaten anyone who's got evidence. Like me, for instance.

 

you did not address the question which is what caused it and show that it is not the cause of the current warming. Keep your straw man in the cornfield

99% confidence levels in 100% inaccurate climate models and IPCC predictions in the last 30 Years. Sounds more like politics and religion than science

easy - Evidence for coral island formation during rising sea level in the central Pacific Ocean Paul S. Kench*, Susan D. Owen and Murray R. Ford

Geophysical Research Letters Volume 41, Issue 3, pages 820–827, 16 February 2014

ypu slandered Dr Curry's professional judgement in post 3

if you ever decide to post that evident please let me know . I am still waiting for you to name and quantify the factors of natural variability that precipitated the many and dramatic temperature changes of the Holocene and show how each is not a factor in the current temperature fluctuations

 

Back to the topic it is nice to see that some among the IPCC are developing some ethics

Dr Tol wrote

Alarmism feeds polarization. Climate zealots want to burn heretics of global warming on a stick. Others only see incompetence and conspiracy in climate research, and nepotism in climate policy. A polarized debate is not conducive to enlightened policy in an area as complex as climate change . The IPCC missed an opportunity to restore itself as a sober authority, accepted (perhaps only grudgingly) by most.

The IPCC does not guard itself against selection bias and group think. Academics who worry about climate change are more likely to publish about it, and more likely to get into the IPCC. Groups of like-minded people reinforce their beliefs. The environment agencies that comment on the draft IPCC report will not argue that their department is obsolete.


while Dr Stavins was pretty blunt

In this letter, I will not comment on the government review and revision process that affected other parts of the SPM, other than to note that as the week progressed, I was surprised by the degree to which governments felt free to recommend and sometimes insist on detailed changes to the SPM text on purely political, as opposed to scientific bases.




seriously this should be the end of the IPCC but with the billions of dollars at stake I know it won't be

 

Do we have to start the Adventures of Jackdog Can't Read? It was natural variability. If you have evidence of any other cause, present it. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

If you don't have any evidence, you can always lie about the science. Denierstan, home of the dishonest.

If you don't have any evidence, you can lie about the IPCC. Denierstan, home of the serially dishonest.

On your part.

Nice try, but Jabat is not an atoll. Also, there is no evidence from this paper that Jabat was not affected by rising sea levels, as you claim. Indeed, the paper implies that the effects were substantial.

You do know the meaning of ad hominem, don't you? If I say "she's stupid," that's ad hominem. If I say "her argument is stupid", it's not ad hominem.

Fine. Here are the main sources of natural variability.
1. Volcanoes. Can't be causing the current warming, because volcanoes cause cooling.
2. The Sun. Can't be causing the current warming, because the stratosphere is cooling.
3. Ocean cycles. Can't be causing the current warming, because ocean cycles don't create heat, they just move it around. In other words, if ocean cycles are causing the surface to warm, then the depths must be cooling. But we've got measurments of ocean heat content going back decades, and the depths are warming too.

You lose, Morris.

 

same old same ol poor debater, you are as predictable as they come. I sometimes feel as if I am in a jr high debate club when I read the posts over her. You may consider a ad homs and an attempt to distract from threads subject the pinnacle of your debating technique but it I am finding it boring as watching paint dry. I have not got time for silly games with people who have nothing to add so you just made my ignore list. Don't bother replying

 

seems as if the IPCC's modeling is not only a scam but their predictions of crop failures also are according to Tol

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374986/ipcc-insider-rejects-global-warming-report-alec-torres

One prediction has it that crop yields will begin to fall dramatically, a statement “that is particularly not supported by the chapter itself,” Tol says. “What it completely forgets is technological progress and that crop yields have been going up for as long as we’ve looked at crop yields.”

The IPCC's credibility is diminishing steadily, seems every time they release a report more of their "consensus" is defecting

 

Evidence? I have been asking you for evidence and you still haven't produced any! LOL. How did that song go? Oh yeah, dream on, dream on, dream until your dream comes true.

 

Reply to what? You offer no evidence, no argument, no debate, and no refutation.

One more denier beat down into the dust, and my work here is done.

- - - Updated - - -

Clearly you haven't been reading my posts.

 

Yes I have and still no evidence to support your claim. Still waiting. hey do me a favor and post that graph again that shows little to no warming again. I think you like that one a lot.

 

Which claim did I make that you are awaiting evidence for so breathlessly? And are you so incompetent with science that you cannot do a literature search? Would you like instruction?

 

I have asked repeatedly for your evidence of causal data that shows an increase in CO2 causes a warmer temperature? You posted graphs that show correlation, but no evidence of cause. I'm still waiting. Oh, and my evidence that it doesn't has been included in multiple threads, and again now, 1940 to 1970 and the last fifteen years.

 

IPCC is hopelessly contaminated by the politicians now. How anyone can look at the IPCC as a scientific organization is beyond me. Science is not about silencing views that make you uncomfortable. that is politics

Robert Stavins http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/

Over the course of the two hours of the contact group deliberations, it became clear that the only way the assembled government representatives would approve text for SPM.5.2 was essentially to remove all “controversial” text (that is, text that was uncomfortable for any one individual government), which meant deleting almost 75% of the text, including nearly all explications and examples under the bolded headings. In more than one instance, specific examples or sentences were removed at the will of only one or two countries, because under IPCC rules, the dissent of one country is sufficient to grind the entire approval process to a halt unless and until that country can be appeased.

I understand that country representatives were only doing their job, so I do not implicate them personally; however, the process the IPCC followed resulted in a process that built political credibility by sacrificing scientific integrity. The final version of SPM.5.2, as agreed to by the contact group, and subsequently approved in plenary (at approximately 3:00 am, April 12th), is attached to this letter as Item B.

 

Great straw man - Dont get any naked flames near it

 

huh? Silly!

 

And I have also posted links to the physics that show causality, which you have either not read or not refuted. But allow me to post a few of them again.

CO2 absorption of infrared (IR), theory:
*Kouzov, A. P., & Chrysos, M. (2009). Collision-induced absorption by CO 2 in the far infrared: Analysis of leading-order moments and interpretation of the experiment. Physical Review A, 80(4), 042703.
*Chrysos, M., Kouzov, A. P., Egorova, N. I., & Rachet, F. (2008 ). Exact Low-Order Classical Moments in Collision-Induced Bands by Linear Rotors: CO 2-CO 2. Physical review letters, 100(13), 133007.
*Buldyreva, J., & Chrysos, M. (2001). Semiclassical modeling of infrared pressure-broadened linewidths: A comparative analysis in CO2–Ar at various temperatures. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 115(16), 7436-7441.
*Kratz, D. P., Gao, B. C., & Kiehl, J. T. (1991). A study of the radiative effects of the 9.4‐and 10.4‐micron bands of carbon dioxide. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 96(D5), 9021-9026.
*Stull, V. R., Wyatt, P. J., & Plass, G. N. (1964). The infrared transmittance of carbon dioxide. Applied Optics, 3(2), 243-254.

CO2 absorption of IR, laboratory measurements:
*R.A. Toth, et al., Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 109:6, April 2008, 906-921.
*Predoi-Cross, A., Unni, A. V., Liu, W., Schofield, I., Holladay, C., McKellar, A. R. W., & Hurtmans, D. (2007). Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012← 00001 and 30013← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence. Journal of molecular spectroscopy, 245(1), 34-51.
*Miller, C. E., & Brown, L. R. (2004). Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I.[sup] 16[/sup] O[sup] 12[/sup] C[sup] 16[/sup] O line positions. Journal of molecular spectroscopy, 228(2), 329-354.
*Niro, F., Boulet, C., & Hartmann, J. M. (2004). Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO[sub] 2[/sub] IR bands between 10 and 20μm. I: model and laboratory measurements. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 88(4), 483-498.
*Benec'h, S., Rachet, F., Chrysos, M., Buldyreva, J., & Bonamy, L. (2002). On far‐wing Raman profiles by CO2. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy, 33(11‐12), 934-940.

Earth's upward emission of IR:
*Murphy, D. M., Solomon, S., Portmann, R. W., Rosenlof, K. H., Forster, P. M., & Wong, T. (2009). An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 114(D17).
*Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., & Kiehl, J. (2009). Earth's global energy budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(3).
*Wong, T., Wielicki, B. A., Lee III, R. B., Smith, G. L., Bush, K. A., & Willis, J. K. (2006). Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner WFOV data. Journal of Climate, 19(16).
*Harries, J. E. (2000). Physics of the Earth's radiative energy balance. Contemporary Physics, 41(5), 309-322.
*Kyle, H. L., Arking, A., Hickey, J. R., Ardanuy, P. E., Jacobowitz, H., Stowe, L. L., ... & Smith, G. L. (1993). The Nimbus Earth radiation budget (ERB) experiment: 1975 to 1992. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 74(5), 815-830.
*Barkstrom, B. R. (1984). The earth radiation budget experiment (ERBE). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 65(11), 1170-1185.

Changes in Earth's upward IR emission as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere:
*Gastineau, G., Soden, B. J., Jackson, D. L., & O'Dell, C. W. (2014). Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models. Journal of Climate, 27(2).
*Chapman, D., Nguyen, P., & Halem, M. (2013, May). A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS. In SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing (pp. 874313-874313). International Society for Optics and Photonics.
*Chen, C., Harries, J., Brindley, H., & Ringer, M. (2007). Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Retrieved October, 13, 2009.
*Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E. (2007). Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS. Journal of climate, 20(15).
*Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E. (2004, November). Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present. In Optical Science and Technology, the SPIE 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 164-174). International Society for Optics and Photonics.


Changes in downwelling infrared from the atmosphere as a result of increased CO2:
*Wang, K., & Liang, S. (2009). Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 114(D19).
*Wild, M., Grieser, J., & Schär, C. (2008 ). Combined surface solar brightening and increasing greenhouse effect support recent intensification of the global land‐based hydrological cycle. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(17).
*Prata, F. (2008 ). The climatological record of clear‐sky longwave radiation at the Earth's surface: evidence for water vapour feedback?. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29(17-18 ), 5247-5263.
*Allan, R. P. (2006). Variability in clear‐sky longwave radiative cooling of the atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 111(D22).
*Philipona, R., Dürr, B., Marty, C., Ohmura, A., & Wild, M. (2004). Radiative forcing‐measured at Earth's surface‐corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(3).

Formal determination of CO2-temperature causality:
* Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2013). Granger Causality Analyses for Climatic Attribution. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 3, 515.
* Attanasio, A. (2012). Testing for linear Granger causality from natural/anthropogenic forcings to global temperature anomalies. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 110(1-2), 281-289.
* Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2012). A contribution to attribution of recent global warming by out‐of‐sample Granger causality analysis. Atmospheric Science Letters, 13(1), 67-72.
* Kodra, E., Chatterjee, S., & Ganguly, A. R. (2011). Exploring Granger causality between global average observed time series of carbon dioxide and temperature. Theoretical and applied climatology, 104(3-4), 325-335.
* Verdes, P. F. (2005). Assessing causality from multivariate time series. PHYSICAL REVIEW-SERIES E-, 72(2), 026222.

Multiple threads? Wow. I'm totally amazed that they let you post exactly the same crap in more than one place.

But has it ever made it past peer-review?

 

Silliness. See no evidence. It's just supposed to because someone said so right? We all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, no argument from me there. Now an increase of it causing additional warmth, unproven, and still unproven. Again 1940 to 1970 and the last fifteen years. CO2 went up temperatures did not follow what any of the models stated. Zip, nada! Now again, evidence?

 

Gee, you read 31 references in 14 minutes? And your only response is that you don't see exactly what you asked for, even though it's clearly there as plain on your face?

Is there any wonder why intelligent people call your kind "deniers"?

 

Dude you provide articles about physics and what is supposed to be, the facts are none of those will show that the actual data followed a model. See I have the IPCC report that tells me that. I have other links I've posted that say that same thing. Now, give me an article that states that Models proven causal events and maybe I'll waste my time reading them. Until then, your physics reports aren't evidence.

 

And yet in spite of this repeated claim, you have never quoted that report verbatim, and have never cited a page reference to back up your false claim. I think you're lying.

Is it possible you could write that sentence grammatically, so that speakers of English can understand what you're saying?

Even after then. You'll just deny the evidence is evidence, deny that the world works the way the world actually does work, deny that Conservation of Energy is even part of science. Show me evidence that you actually accept evidence, because until then you're nothing but a denier.

 

pretty sad that people will end up dying from energy poverty just so the politicians can grab a bit more power, even sadder that poor ignorant schmucks defend them on forums

Dr Vincent Gray - Another IPCC reviewer that saw the charlatans at the UN for what they are

All of that “evidence” is dependent upon “simulations,” and “projections” from untested models. Neither those simulations or projections, constitute “evidence,” since as demonstrated, they are incapable of successful future prediction.

As I pointed out to the IPCC in my comments:

* “Observations” are not the same as actual scientific measurements. They do make measurements, but they conceal them and package them up into multi-averaged “data” which are slanted to claim support for the cause.
- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/14/politics-always-manages-science-at-the-ipcc/#sthash.eW4ZQT5V.dpuf

 

Not silly - I just happen to know what the real issue is - and it is nothing to do with the science

 

Gee...natural climate variability can't be determined..and therefore human induced effects can't be separated out...gee...what a surprise to those of us who have watched others model noise and confuse it with a predictive model before....mmmmmmm......