Fixing the Facts to the Policy

As noted in a prior post, only IPCC insiders have access to the WG1 Report between the Feb 2, 2007 release of the Summary for Policy-Makers and the scheduled publication of the WG1 Report in May 2007. To my knowledge, such a procedure is unprecedented in public commission reporting.

In searching for an explanation of this astonishing procedure, here’s what IPCC procedures (section 4) say about Technical Report acceptance:

Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.

So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 is to enable them to make any “necessary” adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the “necessary” adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. And for IPCC to have the gall to institutionalize the process. Words fail me.

IPCC insiders should not be allowed to change a comma of the WG1 Report after Feb 2, 2007 to “ensure consistency” with the Summary. If the two are inconsistent, let the chips fall where they may.

Reading HadCRUT3 Data

A reader inquired about downloading HAdCRUT3 data. I’ve posted up a recipe here http://data.climateaudit.org/scripts/gridcell/collation.hadcrut3.txt .  You will have to download the *.nc version – see the url in the script details and also install the ncdf package in R. I have not worked much with NetCDF formats, but it seems to be pretty easy to retrieve the gridcell information. I’m planning to use this version rather than the ASCII version, which requires extra manipulation. The series is monthly starting in 1850, one year earlier than earlier versions.

IPCC Schedule: WG1 Report Available Only to Insiders Until May 2007

I was mulling over the IPCC release schedule, which has a procedure that is, shall we say, unprecedented in my experience with public disclosure documents. The schedule has been available for some time, but, to my knowledge, no one has commented on its combination of absurdity and condescension.

On February 2, 2007, they are releasing the Summary for Policy-Makers to great fanfare. But the actual WG1 Report will not be published on Feb 2, 2007. Amazingly, the actual release of the 4AR (Fourth Assessment Report) does not come until a few months later in May 2007. Thus, there will be no possibility for external readers to verify what IPCC insiders say will be an “iconic statement” against the actual WG1 report during that period.

By making access available only to insiders, IPCC has created a structure where IPCC insiders will try to shape perceptions of the WG1 report for 3 months before any critical appraisal of the final report (available since October 2006) is possible.
Here’s what the schedule at the IPCC-UCAR website says:

It is expected that the approved text of the Summary for Policymakers will be released at a press conference in Paris on February 2, 2007, and that it will also be available on this web site from that date.

Prior to its final approval on February 2, the content of the report is embargoed in order to allow the final stages of review and revision to be carried out in a balanced way. Speculation as to the content of the report has been inaccurate and unhelpful. All those interested in this new assessment of climate science are asked to accept the need to wait for the report to be completed according to normal IPCC procedures.

The full Working Group I report will be available online from May 2007. It will also be published by Cambridge University Press and is expected to be available in book form by late June 2007.

In an electronic era, it is completely trivial to post chapter pdf’s online. Indeed, that’s what IPCC WG1 did during the review process and plans to do in May 2007. The Second Draft was distributed in April 2006.

The Fourth Assessment Report should be released online on Feb 2, 2007 concurrently with the Summary for Policy-Makers.

Update (p.m.): If you’re wondering about this procedure which, to my knowledge, is unprecedented in public commission reporting, here’s what IPCC procedures (section 4) say about Technical Report acceptance:

Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.

So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 is to enable them to make any “necessary” adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the “necessary” adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.

IPCC insiders should not be allowed to change a comma of the WG1 Report after Feb 2, 2007 to “ensure consistency” with the Summary. If the two are inconsistent, let the chips fall where they may.

Southern Ocean Temperature Trends

I pointed out a few posts ago that Antarctic temperatures had been declining during the period of satellite measurement.’ IPCC 4AR Second Draft says that “recent warming is strongly evident at all latitudes in SSTs over each of the oceans“.’ “Strongly” seems to be a new favorite word – think of all the times that Holland and Webster use it. Given the declining trend in Antarctic (satellite) temperatures, I wondered whether this statement was actually true.’ I looked at both Mears-Wentz and Christy data.’ Surprise, surprise – recent warming is not evident over all latitudes – much less “strongly evident”. Continue reading

Salzer and Hughes on Bristlecones

A reader writes in:

I think Steve and the other CA readers will be interested in the new article by Matthew Salzer and Malcolm Hughes (of MBH fame) entitled “Bristlecone pine tree rings and volcanic eruptions over the last 5000 yr” in the latest issue of Quaternary Research, “> available for free.

I don’t have time to review this right now but look forward to it.

Here’s the reader’s summary: Continue reading

Antarctic Update

We hear lots about polar amplification.  Mears and Wentz recently updated their TMT (mid-troposphere) data for 60-70S, but didn’t update the more controversial TLT3 (lower-troposphere) data, which is current only to August 2006.  Given the pending IPCC 4AR, you’d think that Mears and Wentz would be completely up-to-date with their lower troposphere results. Is there a reason?  Well, there’s a rather high correlation between the TMT and TLT3 series (0.76 – a huge correlation in climate terms) so I used the TMT series to project the TLT3 series to the end of December 2006. I’m projecting that the December 2006 Mears-Wentz Antarctic TLT3 when reported will be one of the lowest on record.

Continue reading

East Atlantic Storm-Days

On January 1, in a post entitled Two Curious Hurricane Graphs, I observed that the mean longitude of Atlantic storm measurements had migrated east and that the entire increase in Atlantic storm-days had occurred in the east Atlantic, illustrating the point with several graphics. To my knowledge, neither fact had ever been previously published. I noted that the restriction of the increase to the east Atlantic was an indication that the increase might reflect methodological, rather than climatological factors.

Yesterday, Roger Pielke noted that Holland and Webster had posted a PPT online, parts of which can only be interpreted as a response to this criticism. Prior to my post, to my knowledge, Holland and Webster had never discussed differing trends between the east and west Atlantic. Yet within 2 weeks, they posted up a PPT contesting my suggestion that the differing trend between east and west Atlantic counts might be a technological rather than climatological trend.  Although they didn’t cite climateaudit, I think that it’s fair to see that they were responding to our raising the issue.
However they fail to prove their point. Their key PPT argument on the east-west issue is that tropical storms originating in all Atlantic quadrants had increased. Continue reading

Toronto Star Previews AR4

The Toronto Star has broken the embargo on the IPCC AR4. They give a short synopsis of the expected from the Summary for Policy Makers.  One of the items in the short review was the relative attribution between solar and greenhouse. The article says:

Rebutting one of the main arguments of climate change skeptics, it says observations of temperature increases and shrinking ice cover, “support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years” was caused by solar flares or other natural events.

The article also mentions:

All the continents except Antarctica have warmed during the past half-century.

I wonder what happened to polar amplification- I guess they meant North Polar amplification [Santa et al, 2006 – ho, ho, ho].

An Excellent Sonechkin Comment

I just noticed an excellent comment by Sonechkin (one of the Moberg authors) on the CPD submission of Bürger and Cubasch. I suspect that climateaudit readers will agree with everything that he says. The remarkable thing is that these claims, which we’ve been making for some time, should ever have been controversial. Continue reading

Swedish Tree Line

A new thread at bender’s suggestion. Treelines are a climate indicator that I’ve paid attention to in the past as evidence that made sense to me about the relationship of modern and medieval climate. I’ve posted up threads in the past about tree lines in California being higher than at present in the MWP and Holocene Optimum; likewise in the Urals and Fennoscandia – see this Category for some prior posts. Reader Tom has sent in a news report that Swedish tree lines are at levels that are matching the Holocene Optimum.

“The tree line has moved by up to 200 meters (656 feet) in some places. Trees have not grown at such high levels for around 7,000 years,” Leif Kullman, a professor at Umeaa University’s department of ecology and environmental science, told AFP Tuesday. Continue reading