Tag Archives: ar5

The IPCC Southern Hemisphere Reconstructions

A question for readers: which of the following proxies are used to reconstruct past Southern Hemisphere temperature in the IPCC’s graphic (Figure 5.7b) showing SH reconstructions: 1. Graybill’s California strip-bark bristlecone chronologies 2. upside down and contaminated Finnish lake sediments 3. European instrumental temperature data 4. Antarctic ice core d18O isotope data covering the medieval […]

Two Minutes to Midnight

There is much in the news about how IPCC will handle the growing discrepancy between models and observations – long an issue at skeptic blogs. According to BBC News, a Dutch participant says that “governments are demanding a clear explanation” of the discrepancy. On the other hand, Der Spiegel reports: German ministries insist that it […]

Hide the Megadroughts

Pielke Jr asserts, using unvarnished words, that WG2 Co-Chair Christopher Field, an ecology professor at Stanford, “misled” Congress. Pielke stated: This is not a particularly nuanced or complex issue. What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether […]

IPCC Rejects Anonymous Review

Although the IPCC calendar webpage doesn’t link to session documents of the 34th session (Kampala Nov 2011), David Holland has alertly located the documents – see here. IPCC rejected a proposal for anonymous peer review – see document here (page 12 on). We haven’t discussed this topic previously (in an IPCC context). On reflection, the […]

Geoffrey Boulton and IPCC Secrecy

Phil Jones’ written answers to the Muir Russell panel shed interesting light on the insularity of IPCC authors, who see nothing odd about a system in which reviewers do not see either author responses to their review comments or the comments of other reviewers until long after the release of the final document. Jones’ comments […]

Another IPCC Demand for Secrecy

Unfortunately, IPCC seems far more concerned about secrecy than in requiring its contributors to archive data. I received another request to remove discussion of IPCC draft reports. On this issue, David Appell and I are in full agreement – see David Appell’s collection of ZOD chapters here. (Jan 30 Update – see below.)

Neukom and the Steig Over/Under

Earlier this year, I reported on the refusal of Raphael Neukom, an associate of IPCC confidentiality advocate and WG1 Co-Chair Thomas Stocker at the University of Bern, to archive data used in a then recent multiproxy study, Neukom et al 2011 (Clim Dyn). In his refusal letter, Neukom stated that Most of the non-publicly available […]

Stocker’s Earmarks

In December, the WG1 TSU of the IPCC sent me a formal notice asking me to remove Climate Audit discussion of the IPCC Zero Draft. In this notice, they stated: It has come to our attention that several Chapters of the Zero Order Draft (ZOD) of WGI AR5 are being cited, quoted and discussed on […]

Watch the Pea – AR5 (ZOD) Chapter 10

As CA readers are aware, key findings of Santer et al 2008 do not hold using updated data. Ross and I submitted a comment to IJC showing this. The comment was rejected twice, with one of the reviewers (as in the case of the comment on Steig et al) being a Santer coauthor (who was […]

AR5 Loves Steig et al 2009

Jeff Id has an excellent post on IPCC AR5 use of the highly flawed Steig et al 2009. Despite Steig’s efforts to block the publication of O’Donnell et al 2010, O2010 shows clearly that whatever is new in Steig et al 2009 is not only incorrect, but an artifact of flawed math and whatever is […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,114 other followers