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 (grudgingly) placed the WG1 Review Comments and Replies online- url here they did not place the Review Editor comments online, despite the importance of review editors. Through the diligent efforts of David Holland, the IPCC WG1 and WG2 Review Editor comments have now been obtained and are now online for the first time here – at this point, another Climate Audit exclusive.
When you examine these review comments, as I urge you to do, please remember that this is supposed to be the most carefully reviewed document in human history, where entire stadiums of scientists have carefully weighed each word. Compare that impression to the actual review editor comments, which as you will see do not rise above a form letter for 64 of 69 Review Editor comments discussed here.
Read the rest of the entry here.
There is a very good letter from David Holland to Prof John Mitchell here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Why am I not, in the slightest bit, surprised. These people have consistently used the MO of shonks. From plucking the 90% certainty figure out of their bums to refusing to supply source data, from extrapolating to preposterous emission scenarios to refusing to recognise the posssibility of the warming half of natural temperature variation, the one consistent behavioural feature is their failure to act like people who can be trusted.
Here you go Jennifer/Paul whomever, something out today:
“Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun’s activity.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm
Paul, I think you have been sold a bridge.
Obviously these aren’t the review comments. They are letters the reviewers wrote to confirm they had reviewed it.
Subtle I know…
Countryboy,
The English researchers call it a game, which makes their approach, not only patronising, but worthy of a most critical analysis.
They note that the sun occasionally burps, producing a ” huge burst of charged particles” other known as a CME or a coronal mass ejection.
Stuart Clark documented the occurrence of a rather large CME in his book “The Sun Kings” in which the facts of the 1859 CME are detailed.
The earth fortunately experienced only a glancing blow from this burp of charged particles, but the weather, and hence clouds, were profoudly affected.
So the BBC gloat that the cosmic ray – cloud cover theory is dead and buried may be a little premature.
I add that if the earth was hit full on by a CME, no one here would remain to remember it.
And those of you who think the sun has little effect on the earth’s weather, should not venture out from your caves.
Countryboy,
It is the last sentence in Sloan’s statement below which makes you wonder; does he have an agenda?
“We tried to corroborate Svensmark’s hypothesis, but we could not; as far as we can see, he has no reason to challenge the IPCC – the IPCC has got it right.
“So we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions.”
If he would have left out the last sentence, his message would be more compelling. Now it seems, once again, a policy statement by a scientist a la Jim Hansen.
Of course the review EDITORS’ comments aren’t the REVIEWERS’ comments, Mr. T, as Paul’s post makes abundantly clear.
But the review editor comments are valuable in their own right. It’s useful to know, for example, that one of the review editors of WGII Chapter 19 – Australia’s John Zillman – did not agree with the statements made in the form letters of the other two review editors of the same Chapter. Thanks to David Holland’s persistent efforts, we at least know that much.
According to Dr. Zillman’s comments, ‘significant points [had] not been fully taken on board’, and ‘misleading implications [were conveyed] that comments [had] been taken on board’ when in fact the comments had been ‘ignored … deleted [or the lead authors had] actually taken a different position in their revised text.’ John Zillman also identified ‘uncompleted responses’, ‘erroneous statements’, and ‘one particular point on which it is arguable that the Lead Authors have tried to give the impression of having responded to Review Comments but have subtly avoided doing so to the extent implied.’
What was the verdict of the other review editors of Chapter 19 on Zillman’s concerns? Did any of the 200 governments on the Panel share these concerns? Surely these are reasonable questions.
The UK’s John Mitchell, Review Editor of WGI Chapter 6, consulted the IPCC on his reply to the letter from David Holland to which Paul provides a link. Yes, but who? Who says on behalf of an intergovernmental panel that there’s no need for a review editor to retain his working papers, when the Panel’s Principles are clear that the papers are to be retained in a public archive for five years?
On the evidence of the material that’s now been dragged out of two of the IPCC Technical Support Units, the AR4 review process left a good deal to be desired. It probably never occurred to most of the review editors that their comments would be made public.
.
Countryboy – This post was actually about the review editors’ rubber stamping WG1 with a ‘form letter’ rather than commenting on it.
The evidence for a cosmic ray link to climate was recently reviewed by Uroskin and Kovaltsov:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002795.html
“In conclusion, a CR-climate link seems to be a plausible climate driver, as supported by the bulk of statistical studies and existing theoretical models. However, further studies, in particular a clear case study as well as improved model development, are foreseen to improve our understanding of the link between cosmic rays and the climate on Earth.”
So choose the paper that suits your perspective.
Nir Shaviv also clashed with the political front for climate science RC:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002838.html
Unfortunately RC can’t count the number of spiral arms in the galaxy.
That said, the magnitude of the cosmic ray effect is unknown/unproven.
My own view on climate change, for recent and long past climate changes, is that solar/galactic/orbital factors are the external natural drivers/influence.
Internally we have known natural climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation, plus volcanoes. CO2 changes tend to lag temperature changes, rather than drive them, but man-made CO2 is the ‘new kid on the block.’ However, the greenhouse effect of CO2 is pretty much all done by 300ppmv, and computer models overestimate climate sensitivity to CO2 in the the real world. We can add in the effects of land use changes and other stuff we put into the atmosphere.
Either way, meaningfully reducing or eliminating global CO2 emissions is proving to be an impossible task.