Here’s something I meant to post up when AR4 came out. I was reminded of this when Rob Wilson posted recently: Lastly, lets not forget that TR based reconstructions of NH temperatures exist that do not use Bristlecone pine or Foxtail data. Rob’s point here is very disingenuous (to use Mann-speak) since millennial reconstructions are […]
John A writes: After a brief search, I found the paper “Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts” This paper came to my attention via an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. It concerns a paper written by two experts on scientific forecasting where they perform an audit on Chapter 8 of WG1 in […]
In a recent post, I’ve indicated that IPCC authors seems to have invented a “test” for long-term persistence that is nowhere attested in any statistical literature and, if I’ve interpreted what they’ve done correctly, appears to be a useless test. Jean S and I have made a few references to the Review Comments on the […]
In browsing AR4 chapter 3, I encountered something that seems very strange in Table 3.2 which reports trends and trend significance for a variety of prominent temperature series (HAdCRU, HadSST, CRUTem). The caption states: The Durbin Watson D-statistic (not shown) for the residuals, after allowing for first-order serial correlation, never indicates significant positive serial correlation. […]
In a website release earlier this year, NOAA proudly announced the extensive involvement of its officers in IPCC as lead authors, review authors and even the co-chair of IPCC WG1, Susan Solomon, a senior scientist of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., is co-chair of Working Group 1 (WG1), the Physical Science […]
I’ve posted on several occasions on the deletion of the “inconvenient” section of the Briffa reconstruction. Now that the review comments are online, I want to reprise this, just so you can understand the IPCC process a little better. This repeats some earlier material. As an IPCC reviewer, I Show the Briffa et al reconstruction […]
Well, here is a small accomplishment that I think can reasonably be credited to climateaudit. As we approach the due date for the NOAA FOI responses, IPCC has now put the review comments online. Enjoy.
I recently received a copy of how IPCC authors answered the review comments, including their answers to the requirement of one reviewer that the deleted Briffa data be restored (and an explanation given for the inconvenient bits.) You may recall the observation of one reader in the discussion of Swindle, the reader observing: If a […]
John A writes: I thought this would be interesting to note in passing. The IPCC has “Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties“.
IPCC has just written me saying that they will send me review comments on chapter 6 subject to the following restriction: As this additional form of distribution is being provided in conjunction with the review process, the compiled comments are not for re-distribution to others. Given that the review comments are supposedly in an “open […]
Climate Audit 