It's official, IPCC now joins the climategate clowns from East Anglia, etc. There are so many problems found by the IAC's independent review that it's really hard to take anything the IPCC says seriously. A few of the problems: Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a probability to an outcome or event (e.g., based on measurement, expert judgment, and/or model runs). The confidence scale should not be used to assign subjective probabilities to ill-defined outcomes. The likelihood scale should be stated in terms of probabilities (numbers) in addition to words to improve understanding of uncertainty. Where practical, formal expert elicitation procedures should be used to obtain subjective probabilities for key results. The IPCC should make the process and criteria for selecting participants for scoping meetings more transparent. The IPCC should establish a formal set of criteria and processes for selecting Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors. The IPCC should make every effort to engage local experts on the author teams of the regional chapters of the Working Group II report, but should also engage experts from countries outside of the region when they can provide an essential contribution to the assessment. The IPCC should strengthen and enforce its procedure for the use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature, including providing more specific guidance on how to evaluate such information, adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable, and ensuring that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged in the report. Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views. The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for responding to reviewer comments. In such a process, Review Editors would prepare a written summary of the most significant issues raised by reviewers shortly after review comments have been received. Authors would be required to provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors, abbreviated responses to all non-editorial comments, and no written responses to editorial comments. The IPCC should encourage Review Editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that reviewers’ comments are adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies are adequately reflected in the report. The IPCC should revise its process for the approval of the Summary for Policy Makers so that governments provide written comments prior to the Plenary. All Working Groups should use the qualitative level-of-understanding scale in their Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary, as suggested in IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the Fourth Assessment Report. This scale may be supplemented by a quantitative probability scale, if appropriate. Chapter Lead Authors should provide a traceable account of how they arrived at their ratings for level of scientific understanding and likelihood that an outcome will occur. The IPCC should establish an Executive Committee to act on its behalf between Plenary sessions. The membership of the Committee should include the IPCC Chair, the Working Group Co-chairs, the senior member of the Secretariat, and 3 independent members, including some from outside of the climate community. Members would be elected by the Plenary and serve until their successors are in place. The term of the IPCC Chair should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment. The IPCC should develop and adopt formal qualifications and formally articulate the roles and responsibilities for all Bureau members, including the IPCC Chair, to ensure that they have both the highest scholarly qualifications and proven leadership skills. The terms of the Working Group Co-chairs should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment. The IPCC should redefine the responsibilities of key Secretariat positions both to improve efficiency and to allow for any future senior appointments. The IPCC should elect an Executive Director to lead the Secretariat and handle day-to-day operations of the organization. The term of this senior scientist should be limited to the timeframe of one assessment. The IPCC should develop and adopt a rigorous conflict of interest policy that applies to all individuals directly involved in the preparation of IPCC reports, including senior IPCC leadership (IPCC Chair and Vice Chairs), authors with responsibilities for report content (i.e., Working Group Co-chairs, Coordinating Lead Authors, and Lead Authors), Review Editors, and technical staff directly involved in report preparation (e.g., staff of Technical Support Units and the IPCC Secretariat). The IPCC should complete and implement a communications strategy that emphasizes transparency, rapid and thoughtful responses, and relevance to stakeholders, and which includes guidelines about who can speak on behalf of IPCC and how to represent the organization appropriately.
Well, if out-of-context quotes is what you are after, the post above is fine. If you actually want to see what the report said, and their context for saying it, you'd do better to read it. InterAcademy Council | Review of the IPCC | An Evaluation of the Procedures and Processes of the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change When I look at the first paragraph of their conclusions, and see these phrases: successful overall served society well a considerable achievement in its own right a successful assessment raised the level of scientific debate I don't know, maybe it's me, but "clowns" is not the first phrase that comes to mind. Here's the first paragraph of the conclusions, in full: "The Committee concludes that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has served society well. The commitment of many thousands of the world’s leading scientists and other experts to the assessment process and to the communication of the nature of our understanding of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right. Similarly, the sustained commitment of governments to the process and their buy-in to the results is a mark of a successful assessment. Through its unique partnership between scientists and governments, the IPCC has heightened public awareness of climate change, raised the level of scientific debate, and influenced the science agendas of many nations. However, despite these successes, some fundamental changes to the process and the management structure are essential, as discussed in this report and summarized below." Similarly, for East Anglia, if you're happy with baseless mudslinging, then calling them "clowns" should do it for you. But if you want to know what the official inquiries into the matter actually said, you'd do well to skim the last such, the Muir Russel report, here; http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf When I read their first conclusion, again, the term "clowns" is hardly what comes to mind: "13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt." (emphasis theirs). So, I guess it's a matter of choice. But if it were up to me, if these official summaries describe "clowns", then I think we need more "clowns" in this process.
The IAC report was hardly inspiring and the E. Anglia report a whitewash. You can spitshine a turd all you want Chogan - but it's still a turd. BTW - I would hardly call evasion of FOI requests and destroying scientific data to be "mudslinging". But maybe you have different standards in your line of work.
The next IPCC report will be a lot different than 2007. These reviews (it seems to me) focused on procedural matters. But there is a lot of new knowledge about the earth system. I could probably not do an effective job summarizing it, but at least I would like to draw your attention to a paper by Zhao and Running in Science, 20 Augusut 2010.Their conclusions are more than a bit unsettling. Let me know if you're curious and have difficulty obtaining a copy.
A concern sometimes expressed about climate science research is that contrarian viewpoints are hindered in the review and publication process. So , when new papers pop up suggesting that Greenland icesheet melting has been over-estimated, I have the urge to let y'all know: Xiaoping Wu, Michael B. Heflin, Hugo Schotman, Bert L. A. Vermeersen, Danan Dong, Richard S. Gross, Erik R. Ivins, Angelyn W. Moore, Susan E. Owen. Simultaneous estimation of global present-day water transport and glacial isostatic adjustment. Nature Geoscience, 2010; 3 (9): 642 DOI: 10.1038/ngeo938 David H. Bromwich, Julien P. Nicolas. Sea-level rise: Ice-sheet uncertainty. Nature Geoscience, 2010; 3 (9): 596 DOI: 10.1038/ngeo946 Ah, isostatic rebound. As taught in undergraduate geology courses. Anyway, a secondary message here, at least for those with confidence in the scientific process, is that science is self-correcting.
I can't imagine why the summary said the researchers were surprised. For the US at least, the red area on the map is exactly where global warming is expected to generate drought, and, eventually, permanent dustbowl conditions, for example, Southwest headed for Dust Bowl dryness: study | Reuters. I count three separate scholarly studies that have reached the same conclusion. Near as I can tell, the 50/50 odds for when that area flips to a drought index equal to that obtained in the US 1930's dustbowl is 2050. Most of the writeups have some subjective statement on the order of "as soon as 2030". By 2100, it's pretty close to certainty. And the same mechanism will drive the drying-out of large parts of the mid-latitude continental interiors all over the world. Basically, as it warms, the equatorial Hadley cells expand and precipitation gets pushed northward. Higher temperatures = more evaporation, plus lower precipitation, = drought. So, sometime between now and then, the effects of drought are going to be felt. The awful thing is, it's not drought, in the sense of temporary dryness, it's desertification, in the sense of a permanent shift climate of that area.
Just remembers folks, if the facts are not on your side, you can always resort to calling the ones with facts names. It 'worked' for the OP.
I've got to say there is a lot of junk science in that article, I hope the scholarly studies don't follow the trend. It says that if we stop producing co2 all this will change. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there less co2 in the 30s when the dust bowl happened. Maybe a little multivariant analysis should be considered before doomsaying. Perhaps farming methods that used destroyed impervious cover and produced the wrong plants might have had something to do with it. AFAIK there are more people living in the dust bowl areas today and they have not run out of water, perhaps better plants, less use of water might avert this tradgedy. hmm, that doesn't sound dire enough to raise money for the IPCC or other organizations that want to change the world. Finding the global warming data compelling it certainly is likely to be warmer in 2100 than 2010, but then again it was even cooler during the dustbowl. If you are predicting warmer temperatures and less rain than today in that small region I'm with you. If you are predicting drought I've got to ask why the catastrophe is not worse now than it was then? How does your scientific certainty explain that? aren't you just repeating the lies of those in the 70s but saying its because of global warming instead of what was their excuse population explosion (yes it happened) and over use of farm land which did not. Climate will shift as it has always done, worldwide drought is not necessary or even likely. They have big shoes, but they aren't funny, so probably aren't clowns. I do think that there needs to be some more critical science applied and less over reaching conclusions. The over reach gives the GW deniers amunition, especially when it leads to bad predictions. Lets talk science which includes understanding problems with research even if its conclusions are ones that we believe accurate. Belief doesn't have a place in science just facts.
That is not how it works today... you start with a conclusion and then you manipulate some research/data to support it and conveniently destroy the data. The end result: you get more grant money.
I think its perfectly reasonable to expect a dust bowl again, its happening now if you ever visit the area, which I have, I've noticed the changes. All the article pointed out was that climate change is happening, and there is great potential of bad consequences of not planning, which is true in any circumstance. I for one, think we as a country need to start creating a water reserve, like the oil reserve, the way we are allowing corporations to contaminate our water, and add a growing populations in dumb areas, water will be very important in major climate changes. And finally, all the article said was that if we start getting a grasp of CO2 levels, we might be able to lessen the hurt potential a little.
Ok so we have multiple hypothesis. 1) We can expect a dust bowl soon (20-100 years although). We do know that the region goes through periods of heavy rain and then low rainfall. This climate is periodic and does not depend on gw. The reasons given for the original dust bowl was caused by intensive agricultural expansion during a wet period that used plants that were not suited without irrigation for the region. This was followed by a dry period and these non-native plants along with heavy winds provided no cover for the soil. Although the climate period is repeating and dry began in 1999, there is not evidence that agriculture is causing the havoc that it did before. The next hypothesis is that global warming is causing the conditions of the dustbowl. I refer you to the climate record here. The pattern of rainfall is not signifcantly different than historical levels. Unless the authors have new information not put in the sumery this does not stand up to the scientific method. The final item This is where we get to junk science. The authors are throwing out an unsubstantiated theory contrary to mechanism. at least they hedge it by accepted science. If this thing is going to happen in the next 40 years no climate model shows significantly different temperatures in the region even with drastic reduction of CO2. The authors can skate by with the boogie man CO2 without accurately describing its real effect on the climate of the region. We don't really need climate science for this. I will note that water pollution caused by those evil corporation has been decreasing. The biggest recent uptick is when CARB that bastion of environmental love forced mbte into all of california's gasoline and it leaked into the water supply. I do agree in better water management and the article said this was happening. A strategic reserve, what is that, remove it from the ecosystem? It makes no sense. Collecting rain and gray water for irrigation, using species that are native, using greeen building techniques all are part of progress. Right and where is the science behind this statement. Where is the quantization. If the US stopped producing any CO2 would the temperature in the region be even .1 degree C cooler relative to current levels? Would the rainfall increase significantly. Did they even try to put numbers for this in a model?
Can you get me a copy? I have only been able to read the abstract and blog summaries. It sounds interesting so I would like to read the full text. I won't be at the university for a week and I can only seem to download articles for free from there.
TFA plainly states that according to their models should CO2 continue to rise as is expected, the SouthWest will experience reduced average rainfall similar to what has been experienced during drought periods in the past. Unless you happen to live in an area which is undergoing fracking. In which case you might be able to light your tap on fire.
How does one arrive at a "90% probability" of something happening (as does the IPCC) when there is no basis in fact whatsoever to support that conclusion? At least my conclusion - that the IPCC are clowns - is supported by basis in fact, as per the problems with the IPCC report noted in my original post. So just remember Jimbo, when facts are not on your side - just assign a 90% probability and call it a day. Worked for the IPCC.
Drought seems more closely related to PDO and AMO cycles than anything... "The relationship between drought in the continental US and the phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The most severe droughts occur when the PDO is in a negative phase, and the AMO is in a positive phase." From McCabe (2004). "More than half (52%) of the space and time variance in multidecadal drought frequency over the conterminous United States is attributable to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). An additional 22% of the variance in drought frequency is related to a complex spatial pattern of positive and negative trends in drought occurrence possibly related to increasing Northern Hemisphere temperatures or some other unidirectional climate trend. Recent droughts with broad impacts over the conterminous U.S. (1996, 1999-2002) were associated with North Atlantic warming (positive AMO) and northeastern and tropical Pacific cooling (negative PDO). Much of the long-term predictability of drought frequency may reside in the multidecadal behavior of the North Atlantic Ocean. Should the current positive AMO (warm North Atlantic) conditions persist into the upcoming decade, we suggest two possible drought scenarios that resemble the continental-scale patterns of the 1930s (positive PDO) and 1950s (negative PDO) drought." —McCabe (2004)
Historically, you are right - but how will those cycles change once the globe has warmed up a few degrees? They certainly aren't likely to keep on following the same patterns.
I've come around to the conclusion that it was a mistake to have a politician like Al Gore lead the Climate Change bandwagon. This is a serious matter based on scientific observation--the most objective kind of thinking we have--and not one that should be exposed to political bias. The Right Wingers don't trust Al Gore--so that means they shouldn't trust climate warnings? Of course not, but they seem to have a hard time separating the two. What is needed is some leadership from the Right from responsible conservative types. Unfortunately, responsible people like Bill Buckley are a dying breed. They have been replaced by the likes of Limbaugh and Beck, as the Right has moved further Right into the irrational. And mainstream Republican leaders have been unable or unwilling to pull their party back to the middle. You would hope that Republicans like Lindsey Graham would take the reins on the environment, but he is sitting on the sidelines since being anti-everything seems to attract more media attention these days than trying to do constructive things. The old media negativity bit.
Many of the conservatives don't trust science. I don't mean blindly trust; they don't trust it at all. Tom
You may have missed this little news item, but a few months ago BP had a little accident in the Gulf of Mexico. Caused some water pollution. Google "Deepwater Horizon" if you have no idea what I'm talking about.
