More obstruction from the Met Office, in which they have changed their obstruction strategy. Previously they said that Mitchell had destroyed all of this email correspondence. This prompted David Holland to ask for information on the date of the destruction and on records management policy at the Met Office. Rather than answer the unanswerable, the […]
Category Archives: IPCC
On March 31, 2008, David Holland sent a letter to Keith Briffa asking about several IPCC issues. In correspondence released from the Hadley Center, Briffa indicated his intention of being unresponsive. On May 15, Briffa sent an unresponsive reply to Holland, following which Holland initiated a FOI request on May 27, 2008 leading to an […]
As noted in other posts, IPCC policies state: All written expert, and government review comments will be made available to reviewers on request during the review process and will be retained in an open archive in a location determined by the IPCC Secretariat on completion of the Report for a period of at least five […]
We’ve been following with interest David Holland’s efforts to obtain information on how IPCC review editors discharged their important duties under IPCC process, with the most recent progress report here. Here’s another update.
I examined the “In Press” and “Accepted” citations in IPCC AR4 Second Draft Chapter 6 to verify whether Wahl and Ammann 200x had received unusual and special treatment. It definitely did; it’s surprising how much so. There was also a very interesting tendency for IPCC Authors to bend the rules in their own favor.
Here at Climate Audit, we occasionally try to solve mysteries that have vexed climate scientists for years. On a previous occasion, we helped UCAR locate the mysterious civilization of Chile, on another occasion the lost city of Wellington NZ and, most recently, helped NASA find the lost city of Cobija, Bolivia. Today we’ll help the […]
Last year, we noted the insolent and unresponsive answers by IPCC chapter 6 Lead Authors to Review Comments in connection with the Hockey Stick reconstructions. Under IPCC policies, Review Editors have important obligations to ensure responsiveness of Chapter Authors (see policies discussed here). The comments by Review Editors were not put online by IPCC, but, […]
IPCC Review Editors have an extremely important function under IPCC procedures. In prior discussion of the Replies by WG1 Chapter Authors to Review Comments, we noted their unresponsiveness on issues that we were familiar with e.g. the deletion of the inconvenient post-1960 Briffa reconstruction results, the handling of the HS dispute. When the IPCC WG1 […]
David Holland’s FOI request for the Review Comments on IPCC AR4 Chapter 6 (Paleoclimate) has been successful, leading to David obtaining the comments, such as they are, which have now been placed online at CA here (though not yet at IPCC.) David Holland’s request was noted up here; last year, we noted the appalling response […]
Update: see further discussion here NOAA has a webpage on radiative forcing here, which includes a list of equations relating GHG concentrations to radiative forcing, substantially identical to the expressions in TAR. Below is a figure showing, on the left, the graphic at NOAA illustrating their calculation and, on the right, my emulation of this […]