Category Archives: IPCC

IPCC and the Law Dome Graphic

Re-reading Climategate and AR4 Review Comments, I noticed an interesting discussion about handling the Law Dome O18 record – a series used in Mann and Jones (2003) and Jones and Mann (2004) with a very elevated MWP.

What to do with the IPCC?

Update:  Feb 13, 2010 NY Times letter to the editor by Paul Epstein deserves a quotation here: That fossil fuel industry-financed forces are continuing their campaign to undermine the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its chief scientists should not distract us from what we know about our climate. Two physical findings stand […]

The WWF and the EPA Endangerment Finding

One of the more interesting knock-ons of the opportunistic IPCC reliance on WWF and similar “authorities” is that it may compromise the ability of the U.S. EPA to argue that IPCC peer review meets the statutory standards required of EPA peer review. In this respect, I refer to the Climate Audit submission to EPA last […]

IPCC and the “Trick”

Much recent attention has been paid to the email about the “trick” and the effort to “hide the decline”. Climate scientists have complained that this email has been taken “out of context”. In this case, I’m not sure that it’s in their interests that this email be placed in context because the context leads right […]

IPCC: “Inappropriate” to show the decline

One reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report specifically asked IPCC not to hide the decline. The reviewer stated very clearly: 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 […]

AR4 WGIII Lead Authors' Responses online – at last!

I reported here on my efforts to get the WGIII Review Editors’ comments back online together with the Lead Authors’ Responses and the Review Editors’ Reports.  I had sent Patrick Matschoss, the head of AR5 WGIII TSU an open letter for him to put to the IPCC Bureau urging an open and transparent process in […]

Yamal and IPCC AR4 Review Comments

I was one of the more industrious reviewers for IPCC AR4. In my Review Comments, I made frequent reference to Yamal versus the Polar Urals Update, expressing concern about the rationale for using Yamal rather than Polar Urals, an issue that is once again in play. Keith Briffa was the section author and can be […]

WGIII and those unarchived comments and RE reports

At the beginning of September, I was copied an email discussion reporting the online publication in Climatic Change of a paper by Warwick McKibbin, David Pearce, and Alison Stegman.   What was notable about this paper was that it was submitted in September 2005.   What for readers of this site, perhaps, was unremarkable was that it […]

Boundary Layer Clouds: IPCC Bowdlerizes Bony

As we’ve discussed before (and is well known), clouds are the greatest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity. Low-level (“boundary layer”) tropical clouds have been shown to be the largest source of inter-model difference among GCMs. Clouds have been known to be problematic for GCMs since at least the Charney Report in 1979. Given the […]

EPA Quality Guidelines: the NAS Panel and IPCC

The U.S. EPA just released (Apr 17, 2009) “Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act” url together with a Technical Support Document url. In Canada and most countries, governments just implement these sorts of policies without the huge regulatory process that delays everything in […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,421 other followers