SEPP Science Editorials

Index of Editorials Report IPCC Assessment Report	All Editorials for 2020 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Categories Subcategories Antarctic Warming Skepticism [2] Book Review [3] Climate Change CO2 Emissions [1] Climate Models Uncertainty [2] Climate Science Climate Cycles [1] Climate Sensitivity [1] Holes [1] Thermal History [1] Unsolved Problems [1] Energy Issues American Power Act [1] Clean and Sustainable [1] Nuclear Waste Storage [1] Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) [1] Environmentalism Surrogate Religion [1] Foreword Energy Primer for Kids [1] Geo-Engineering Applications [2] Global Climate - International French Academy [1] Global Warming Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) [6] Confusion [1] Economics [1] General [2] Greenhouse Gases [1] Hockeystick [4] Ice Cores [1] Junkscience [9] Oceans' Role [2] Skepticism [1] Sun's Role [2] Health Issues Second Hand Smoke [1] Measurements Arctic Sea Ice [1] Atmospheric Temperature Data [2] Sea Surface Temperature [1] Surface Data [2] Misinformation Statistics Misuse [1] Modern Empirical Science v. Medieval Science [1] NIPCC China [1] Nuclear Fuel Supplies [1] Organizations Climate Research Unit (CRU) [1] International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [2] Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) [1] UK Met Office [1] World Meteorological Organization (WMO) [1] Political Issues Climate Realism [1] Climategate [3] Independent Cross Check of Temperature Data [1] Report IPCC Assessment Report [2] NOAA State of the Climate 2009 [1] NRC-NAS Advancing the Science of Climate Change [1] Sea-Level Rise West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) [1] Alarmism [1] Types of Energy Nuclear Energy [1]
05-Jan-13 Expert Review of IPCC Assessment Report (AR5WGI), Reviewer of All Five Reports 12-Apr-10 Due Diligence on the IPCC Assessment Report #4 [2007]
*(in TWTW* Jan 5, 2013) Guest Editorial by Vincent Gray, New Zealand Expert Review of IPCC Assessment Report (AR5WGI), Reviewer of All Five Reports** Nov 1, 2012 Nov, 2012, General Comments, slightly edited for clarity. Dear Fred and Ken Now the contents of the AR5-WGI 2nd Draft seem to be publicly available I see no reason why I should not make available my comments. You might note that I am far more radical than any of the critics published so far. I consider that the basic models are all fatally flawed for a whole host of reasons. They violate several basic principles of Physics and mathematics. They replace heat transfer by conduction convection and latent heat by radiation, and they ignore altogether the dominant influence of the chaos of air and ocean movement which effectively forbids the long term forecasting they favour... Their earlier projections were all one hundred years ahead, to ensure that their scientist would enjoy their generous pensions before the Projections were proved to be wrong, but they have been tempted to make projections: much earlier. The UK Met Office is suffering yet another cold winter after projecting: the end of snow and the destruction of equipment to deal with it. The current frat actually compares their projections with what has happened recently and it is not impressive. I have also had a thorough look at ARI [Assessment Report I, 1990] which few people seem to have read. Its mention of predictions: which is mainly in the Executive Summary at the beginning, disappear as soon as they give details, when the predictions all disappear in a collection of best estimates and statements of confidence from their collection of biased, well paid supporters. All this subsequently degenerated into an elaborate system of attribution simulation and various levels of likelihood and confidence made by people paid to do so Cheers Vincent Gray View The Week That Was in which this editorial appeared. Return to Top of Page SCIENCE EDITORIAL #12-2010 (in TWTW Apr 12, 2010) *S. Fred Singer, Chairman and President , Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)* Due Diligence on the IPCC Assessment Report #4 [2007] Apr 12, 2010 I know it's a tough job - but let's just check the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC 2007) iconic, widely-quoted conclusion and parse its meaning: "Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GH gas concentrations." How should one interpret this ex cathedra declaration to the faithful? IPCC helpfully defines "very likely" as "90-99% certain", but they don't tell us how they reached such well-defined certainty. What remarkable unanimity! Just how many and whom did they poll? No word. IPCC doesn't define the word "most." We may assume it means anything between 51 and 99%. That's quite a spread. But a footnote informs us that solar forcing is less than 10% of anthropogenic [0.12/ 1.6 W/m2]; so "most" must be closer to 99% than to 51%. OK; let's check out the data since 1958. But we don't want to rely on contaminated surface data - which IPCC likely used (although they omitted to say so). However, atmospheric data were readily available to the IPCC in the CCSP-SAP-1.1 report (Fig 3a, p.54; convening lead author John Lanzante, NOAA), with independent analyses by the Hadley Centre and NOAA that agree well. And further, according to GH models, atmospheric trends should be larger than surface temperature trends. 1958 - 2005: Shows a total warming of +0.5 C . But how much of that is anthropogenic? (The IPCC ascribes pre-1958 warming to natural forcings.) So let's break it down: 1958 - 1976: Cooling 1976 - 1977: Sudden jump of +0.5 C (Cannot be due to GH gases) 1979 - 1997: The satellite data show only a slightly positive trend 1998 - 1999: El Nino spike 2000 - 2001: No detectable warming trend 2001 - 2003: Sudden jump of +0.3 C (Cannot be due to GH gases) 2003 - present: No trend, maybe even slight cooling In conclusion: The IPCC's "most" is not sustained by the best observations; the surface data (1979 to 1997) are suspect - until the raw data and algorithms of CRU are examined. Therefore, the human contribution is very likely only 10% of observed warming --or even less. Return to Top of Page