Un Ipcc Criticised By Independent Review Panel

[Rapid Descent]

The interacademy review committee, investigating the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), found serious flaws with the processes being applied. It found they were slow to respond to and correct errors, and had many criticisms of the review process.

It is pretty well known that the IPCC had largely ignored many critical review comments, trawled heavily from VI-tainted "grey" literature (such as greenpeace or WWF reports), failed to address controversies fairly (such as the hockey stick saga, disaster losses, etc. etc.), slow to respond when errors were pointed out (e.g. glaciers).

These are outlined in the report, along with additional criticisms on lead authors and review editors not really following the existing weak guidelines, and needing both the guidelines and the adherence to guidelines improved.

The report also effectively calls for the IPCC chair, Rajendra "Patchy" Pachauri to stand down by insisting senior officers serve no more than seven years (Raj has been in his post for 8 years now)

I'm impressed by the report, which has not adopted the whitewash approach to the same degree as the others. I would have liked to have seen more on the topic of lead author selection, which is of course how the IPCC maintains a narrow viewpoint, but this is a good start.

Of course, they thank the many scientists for their efforts (as you would expect in this type of report, as IPCC involvement is pro bono), but only the most ardent supporters will find any solace in this.

More here

[tinker]

The BBC I noticed seemed to gloss over the criticism, managing to keep the 'science is proven' stance (that was the soundbite broadcast from the 'discredited' Pachauri).

The report was vaguely balanced give the criticism within the report - they had to mention it! You can imagine the tears, but given by the compromised Harrabin, it was made to appear less consequential. They even had a comment from someone from discredited University of East Anglia to put on a positive spin. Funny really, they have no shame.

[Rapid Descent]

The BBC I noticed seemed to gloss over the criticism, managing to keep the 'science is proven' stance (that was the soundbite broadcast from the 'discredited' Pachauri).

I notice the BBC report (link here) was by Paul Rincon. I suspect Roger Harrabin and Richard Black would have pleaded with the editors not to have to write that article; I would think any criticism of the IPCC would have stuck in their throats and undermined their "special" relationship with the advocate scientists.

But even the BBC had no choice here but to include some criticisms. Pachauri just looks desperate now. His quote:

He stressed that none of the reviews set up in the wake of recent climate controversies found flaws with the fundamental science of climate change.

Ermm... that would be because none of the reviews looked at the "fundamental science of climate change". Even Lord Oxburgh's enquiry only looked at the scientific integrity of a cherry-picked handful of CRU's papers. How would they find fault with something they weren't looking at?

Patchy says he wants to stay on to implement the changes. I think he has missed the point.

[Pick It Down]

However, the world will still probably get warmer as the century wears on.......

Crystal ball time is it. We can't predict volcanic eruptions, we can't predict solar cycles, we can't predict oceanic cycles or changes to the hydrological cycle. We have a litany of unknown unknowns that can affect climate. One that became known recently was that algae blooms by changing the colour of oceans can affect their heat-absorption capacities.

And yet despite all this uncertainty, we know the direction of future climate change?

[newbonic]

Crystal ball time is it. We can't predict volcanic eruptions, we can't predict solar cycles, we can't predict oceanic cycles or changes to the hydrological cycle. We have a litany of unknown unknowns that can affect climate. One that became known recently was that algae blooms by changing the colour of oceans can affect their heat-absorption capacities.

And yet despite all this uncertainty, we know the direction of future climate change?

Statistically, we can predict volcanic eruptions, solar cycles, etc. Over long periods of time. It's obvious to me that predicting such events isn't like the 6pm weather forecast.

[Pick It Down]

Statistically, we can predict volcanic eruptions, solar cycles, etc. Over long periods of time.

How come NASA got the current solar cycle so wrong then? Who predicted the current eruption at Mt Sinabung?

[newbonic]

How come NASA got the current solar cycle so wrong then? Who predicted the current eruption at Mt Sinabung?

You're dissembling aren't you. There's not a geologist or climatologist (etc, whatever 'ology you want) in the world who would claim to predict solar or volcanic activity in a short term time frame.

[Pick It Down]

However, the world will still probably get warmer as the century wears on.......

There's not a geologist or climatologist (etc, whatever 'ology you want) in the world who would claim to predict solar or volcanic activity in a short term time frame.

Since solar cycles and volcanicity can affect climate on a sub-century timescale and you accept they can't be predicted, can you please reconcile these two statements?

[Pick It Down]

And they still havent and wont catch the UEA hacker!

I think the Harry Readme.txt file gave away who it probably was - an internal whistleblower appalled at the state of the climate databases and corruption exposed by the Climategate emails.

[Rapid Descent]

Statistically, we can predict volcanic eruptions, solar cycles, etc. Over long periods of time. It's obvious to me that predicting such events isn't like the 6pm weather forecast.

I would agree with you that predicting climate is a different problem to predicting weather.

But!

Generally speaking, prediction becomes less certain the further into the future you go. Statistics don't help you, either. Scale averaging can never overcome exponential growth in error terms. Simple mathematics.

If it were demonstrated with clear evidence that climate had tight boundary conditions that could be estimated from certain internal parameters of the climate system, that may change things. But nobody has ever successfully demonstrated or evidenced this. I've seen a dozen climate scientists hand wave about the Lorenz system, but the Lorenz system isn't climate, so that doesn't amount to evidence.

Also: predicting tiny changes in probabilities is more difficult than predicting large short term changes.

Also: predicting the behaviour of complex, non-linear, non-ergodic multi parameter systems is even more difficult.

Bottom line is: we don't have a ****ing clue. Part of being a scientist is being honest enough to admit that.

[Pick It Down]

perhaps this chap? http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/photo/harry.jpg

Personally I dont think its relevant and that obvious, but who ever did this isnt going to come clean right now and own up.

Looks just how I'd expect a HPCer to look.