<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Boundary Layer Clouds: IPCC Bowdlerizes Bony</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/</link>
	<description>by Steve McIntyre</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:49:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave F</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/#comment-216578</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave F]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:34:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6590#comment-216578</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Oops, strike &quot;during&quot; in my above comment. Sorry, didn&#039;t finish deleting. :-)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oops, strike &#8220;during&#8221; in my above comment. Sorry, didn&#8217;t finish deleting. <img src='http://s0.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave F</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/#comment-216577</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave F]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:32:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6590#comment-216577</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I just read this article, it was linked to from WUWT. It would seem that &lt;i&gt;daytime&lt;/i&gt; cloud cover is important to the cooling effect of clouds, while &lt;i&gt;nighttime&lt;/i&gt; cloud cover would be important as a warming effect. It would also seem that the variation between during which time clouds are dominant should be given a thorough inspection. 

It won&#039;t be evenly split between day and night, and I would think it strange if the clouds stayed dominant in only one daytime phase. The most difficult part of this analysis would be coming up with the global average data to compare with the global average temperature, imho.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just read this article, it was linked to from WUWT. It would seem that <i>daytime</i> cloud cover is important to the cooling effect of clouds, while <i>nighttime</i> cloud cover would be important as a warming effect. It would also seem that the variation between during which time clouds are dominant should be given a thorough inspection. </p>
<p>It won&#8217;t be evenly split between day and night, and I would think it strange if the clouds stayed dominant in only one daytime phase. The most difficult part of this analysis would be coming up with the global average data to compare with the global average temperature, imho.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KBC Logos &#187; Man-made Global Warming Science Settled?</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/#comment-188279</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[KBC Logos &#187; Man-made Global Warming Science Settled?]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:51:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6590#comment-188279</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Of course, the removal of any doubt about man-made global warming from the IPCC reports seems to be fairly clear. Interestingly, the language in IPCC AR4 is (using the terminology of climate science) [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Of course, the removal of any doubt about man-made global warming from the IPCC reports seems to be fairly clear. Interestingly, the language in IPCC AR4 is (using the terminology of climate science) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick M.</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/#comment-188278</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patrick M.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6590#comment-188278</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Apparently there is a new study in Science concerning clouds and feedback.  I just saw &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&amp;sid=a6EvbLkU1w6w&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt; story at Bloomberg.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apparently there is a new study in Science concerning clouds and feedback.  I just saw <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&amp;sid=a6EvbLkU1w6w" rel="nofollow">this</a> story at Bloomberg.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Climate Research News &#187; Boundary Layer Clouds: Another Instance of IPCC Authors Reviewing Their Own Work</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/#comment-188277</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Climate Research News &#187; Boundary Layer Clouds: Another Instance of IPCC Authors Reviewing Their Own Work]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:22:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6590#comment-188277</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Read the entire Climate Audit post: &#8216;Boundary Layer Clouds: IPCC Bowdlerizes Bony&#8217; [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Read the entire Climate Audit post: &#8216;Boundary Layer Clouds: IPCC Bowdlerizes Bony&#8217; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Dardinger</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/#comment-188276</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave Dardinger]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:10:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6590#comment-188276</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Re: &lt;a href=&quot;#comment-349911&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;philH (#101)&lt;/a&gt;,

Unfortunately, Steve doesn&#039;t allow discussion along these lines, so you&#039;ll have to find another venue to get into the political aspects of IPCC and AGW in general.  (Not that there aren&#039;t plenty of such sites out there).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: <a href="#comment-349911" rel="nofollow">philH (#101)</a>,</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Steve doesn&#8217;t allow discussion along these lines, so you&#8217;ll have to find another venue to get into the political aspects of IPCC and AGW in general.  (Not that there aren&#8217;t plenty of such sites out there).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: philH</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/#comment-188275</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[philH]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:23:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6590#comment-188275</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Re: &lt;a href=&quot;#comment-349563&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kenneth Fritsch (#70)&lt;/a&gt;, I think you have hit upon an important point that goes all the way back to the creation of the IPCC and its supposed mission.  The people tasked with the advice to states sections are in a bit of a bind.  The nation states have basically asked them to examine the science and tell them &quot;What to do.&quot;  It is almost humanly impossible for such a group to write a report that says:  &quot;We can&#039;t agree and don&#039;t know what the scientific answer is and therefore we can&#039;t give you any advice except to wait and see and do nothing now.&quot;  Their client states would no doubt respond with:  &quot;What the hell kind of answer is that!  You&#039;re out of business.&quot;


Whether the result of this tension represents a corruption of the intended process, I don&#039;t know.  It just seems inevitable to me that the advice sections, regardless of a particular bias-or the lack thereof, are always going to come down on one side or another.  Otherwise, nobody gets paid.  The dice are always loaded.

Perhaps the only possible solution is to do away with the advice section; have the IPCC produce an objective, thoroughly scientific report, with room for all sides to contribute, and then submit the whole thing to entirely independent mediation.

On another level, a serious and perhaps insurmountable difficulty is that the whole IPCC process purports to give up an individual nation state&#039;s rights to control its own destiny in a crucially important area.  It would be difficult to think of another area in which so much apparent prestige is granted to the UN. Fundamental disputes are inevitable.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: <a href="#comment-349563" rel="nofollow">Kenneth Fritsch (#70)</a>, I think you have hit upon an important point that goes all the way back to the creation of the IPCC and its supposed mission.  The people tasked with the advice to states sections are in a bit of a bind.  The nation states have basically asked them to examine the science and tell them &#8220;What to do.&#8221;  It is almost humanly impossible for such a group to write a report that says:  &#8220;We can&#8217;t agree and don&#8217;t know what the scientific answer is and therefore we can&#8217;t give you any advice except to wait and see and do nothing now.&#8221;  Their client states would no doubt respond with:  &#8220;What the hell kind of answer is that!  You&#8217;re out of business.&#8221;</p>
<p>Whether the result of this tension represents a corruption of the intended process, I don&#8217;t know.  It just seems inevitable to me that the advice sections, regardless of a particular bias-or the lack thereof, are always going to come down on one side or another.  Otherwise, nobody gets paid.  The dice are always loaded.</p>
<p>Perhaps the only possible solution is to do away with the advice section; have the IPCC produce an objective, thoroughly scientific report, with room for all sides to contribute, and then submit the whole thing to entirely independent mediation.</p>
<p>On another level, a serious and perhaps insurmountable difficulty is that the whole IPCC process purports to give up an individual nation state&#8217;s rights to control its own destiny in a crucially important area.  It would be difficult to think of another area in which so much apparent prestige is granted to the UN. Fundamental disputes are inevitable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jc-at-play</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/#comment-188274</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jc-at-play]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:02:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6590#comment-188274</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Can anybody out there improve upon &lt;a href=&quot;#comment-349545&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;James Erlandson (#64)&lt;/a&gt;&#039;s example? That is, can anyone suggest some specific example of a &#039;proper&#039; engineering report [&lt;em&gt;a la&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;#comment-349645&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Steve McIntyre (#89)&lt;/a&gt;] that is publicly available for browsing through?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can anybody out there improve upon <a href="#comment-349545" rel="nofollow">James Erlandson (#64)</a>&#8216;s example? That is, can anyone suggest some specific example of a &#8216;proper&#8217; engineering report [<em>a la</em> <a href="#comment-349645" rel="nofollow">Steve McIntyre (#89)</a>] that is publicly available for browsing through?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed Snack</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/#comment-188273</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ed Snack]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:03:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6590#comment-188273</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Graeme, the next step is the same as the last few. Completely ignore this work by Steve and others and continue to claim that the sky is falling. Why change a winning game ?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Graeme, the next step is the same as the last few. Completely ignore this work by Steve and others and continue to claim that the sky is falling. Why change a winning game ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graeme Strathdee</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/#comment-188272</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Graeme Strathdee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:36:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6590#comment-188272</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I find that all the excellent contributions above on the subject of professional standards and the parallel observations that IPCC reports fall short of meeting recognized specifications should be cause for concern at the level of UN-member national governments.

In general the leadership that has forced international agreements on emissions controls has come from professions that have no such standards. The obvious reluctance of governments to adopt another Kyoto-like set of emissions constraints based on the justification presented in the IPCC reports is a sign that the IPCC&#039;s arbitrary standards and practices are just not good enough.

The abuses of climate science by NGO opportunists and some government agencies also makes the case for both &quot;engineering&quot; and ethical standards.
When legitimate attempts to analyze and control the Earth&#039;s atmosphere become confused with fundraisers&#039; profiteering we are all being gored.

So Team, what&#039;s the next step?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find that all the excellent contributions above on the subject of professional standards and the parallel observations that IPCC reports fall short of meeting recognized specifications should be cause for concern at the level of UN-member national governments.</p>
<p>In general the leadership that has forced international agreements on emissions controls has come from professions that have no such standards. The obvious reluctance of governments to adopt another Kyoto-like set of emissions constraints based on the justification presented in the IPCC reports is a sign that the IPCC&#8217;s arbitrary standards and practices are just not good enough.</p>
<p>The abuses of climate science by NGO opportunists and some government agencies also makes the case for both &#8220;engineering&#8221; and ethical standards.<br />
When legitimate attempts to analyze and control the Earth&#8217;s atmosphere become confused with fundraisers&#8217; profiteering we are all being gored.</p>
<p>So Team, what&#8217;s the next step?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

