IPCC hysteria

ABC are offering hysteria and moral indignation in their coverage of the IPCC's latest report. For an adult's perspective see what missing voice Dr Judy Curry has to offer....

IPCC diagnosis – permanent paradigm paralysis

by Judith Curry

Diagnosis: paradigm paralysis, caused by motivated reasoning, oversimplification, and consensus seeking; worsened and made permanent by a vicious positive feedback effect at the climate science-policy interface.

In a previous post, I discussed the IPCC’s diagnosis of a planetary fever and their prescription for planet Earth.  In this post, I provide a diagnosis and prescription for the IPCC

To read the rest follow the link.

Missing news: Problems with climate models

Roger Pielke Snr has an interesting post that will no doubt never be covered by the ABC's Science unit. It's on continuing problems with the skill of climate models, and based on a discussion of the work of Demetris Koutoyiannis.

From Koutsoyiannis et al 2011

“….we tested whether the model outputs are consistent with reality (which reflects the entire variability, due to combined natural and anthropogenic effects). Our results extend Huard’s statements further. Specifically, we show that, climate models are not only unable to predict the variability of climate, but they are also unable to reproduce even the means of temperature and rainfall in the past. For example, as we stated in our paper, “In some [models], the annual mean temperature of the USA is overestimated by about 4–5◦C and the annual precipitation by about 300–400 mm”.

Roger comments:
This Comment/Reply illustrates, in my view, the continued pressure on Editors not to publish papers that conflict with the IPCC perspective of the climate system and the ability of global climate models to provide skillful predictions decades into the future. Instead of showing in a quantifiable manner any flaws in the work by Demetris Koutsoyiannis and colleages, Huard 2011 resorts to semantics and criticisms of the review process. Whenever authors resort to such arguments, it illustrates that they cannot refute the substance of the research study.

See the whole post HERE.

Missing News: New book exposes UN climate Panel

Donna Laframboise is the author of a new book that lifts the veil from the IPCC. Donna was interviewed on SunTV, we wonder when she will appear on our ABC, perhaps on Lateline, The Science Show or Q and A.

The book, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, an IPCC Exposé, is available from $5 via Amazon.

This review from the Tucson Citizen.
In this book, Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise exposes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a fraud. LaFramboise (see author profile here) spent two years investigating the IPCC. She says it acts like a spoiled teenager, hence the title of the book.

The IPCC has long been touted as the preeminent authority on climate science. But LaFramboise shows that the participants were picked by governments, not for their scientific expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.” Many of the scientists are in fact, very young graduate students. Many of the bureaucrats in the IPCC are from radical environmental groups. Real experts are often ignored. She says the IPCC is a purely political organization, not a scientific one, and she backs up her charges with copious references.

Read the rest via the link above.

Cut and pasted - IPCC errors

From the cut and paste section in today's Australian newspaper...

A sturdy declaration on p19 of the climate commission magnum opus, The Critical Decade:

THE [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]'s Fourth Assessment Report has been intensively and exhaustively scrutinised and is virtually error-free.

ABC News Watch blog on Thursday:

HERE are links to the IPCC's own list of errors in the AR4 report, it runs to about 3200 words. When we cut and pasted them all into MSword we ended up with 31 pages.

For more errors and lies from the Climate commission...
see Lies of the climate commission PART 1, PART 2, PART 3, PART 4 and PART 5

None of these reported by Australia's state owned media corporation.

Lies of the Climate Commission: Part 4

The following statement appears on page 20 of the Climate Commission's report "The Critical Decade".

"The IPCC AR4 has been intensively and exhaustively scrutinised, including formal reviews such as that by the InterAcademy Council (2010), and only two peripheral errors, both of them in the WG 2 report on impacts and adaptation, have yet been found (in a publication containing approximately 2.5 million words!)."

on page 19:––The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report has been intensively and exhaustively scrutinised and is virtually error-free.

Here are links (below) to the IPCC's own list of errors in the AR4 report. Combined it runs to about 3200 words. When we cut and pasted them all into MSword we ended up with 31 pages. These errors were noted after the report was published which doesn't say much for the "exhaustive, thorough process" of review described by the climate commissioners. "The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, involved about 1,250 expert authors and 2,500 reviewers, who produced about 90,000 comments on drafts, each one of which was addressed explicitly by the authors (ed. many of these were totally ignored)". Here's how some IPCC authors dealt with peer reviewed papers critical of the IPCC consensus:

 "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep

them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Cheers Phil" Source

That's Phil Jones of Climategate fame

New errors have been noted in AR4 as recently as last month.

(Note our own small contribution to the list of errors in WG2 brought about thanks to the ABC's reliance on the IPCC as a "reliable" source of climate information-seems parts of Sri Lanka were not warming at a rate of 2 degrees per year).

Errors in WORKING GROUP I
Note. The following is a list of errata and corrections to the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Last updated: 4 April 2011

Errors in WORKING GROUP II

Note. The following is a list of errata and corrections to the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Last updated 24 February 2011

Errors in Working GROUP III
Errata for the Working Group III contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report. (Last updated 28 July 2010)

Will the ABC report on this misleading statement, or will it continue to leave its audience in the dark?

A modest contribution to the IPCC

The IPCC have finally go around to listing corrections made to AR4, Working Group II Table 10.2. While we take credit for the corrections and the lines added to the errata (see below), it could not have happened without the lack of inquiry and curiosity shown by ABC News.
I guess the "thankyou" is in the mail!
For the full story see articles listed under the Himalaya/IPCC page.

475	Chapter 10	Table 10.2, lines 31-32 (Nepal entry). Replace "0.09°C per year in the Himalayas and 0.04°C in Teral region, more in winter" with "For 1977-94: 0.090°C per year in Trans-Himalaya and 0.057°C per year in the Himalaya, more in winter; 0.041°C per year in Terai region". Add "Shrestha et al., 1999" to References column.
475	Chapter 10	Table 10.2, lines 40-42 (Sri Lanka entry). Replace "0.016°C increase per year between 1961 to 90 over entire country, 2°C increase per year in central highlands" with " 0.016°C increase per year between 1961 to 90 over entire country, with regional increases ranging from 0.008 to 0.025°C per year."
504	Chapter 10	Add "Shrestha, A.B., C.P. Wake, P.A. Mayewski and J.E. Dibb, 1999: Maximum temperature trends in the Himalaya and its vicinity: an analysis based on temperature records from Nepal for the period 1971-94. J.Clim., 12, 2775-2786."

IPCC correct Table 10.2

In August last year we notified the IPCC (see HERE and HERE) of a series of errors with Table 10.2 of its Assessment Report Four, Working Group 2 report. These errors (listed HERE) included missing and incorrect references, incorrect and misleading claims about warming in the Himalaya and the astounding claim that temperatures in Sri Lanka were warming at a rate of 2 degrees per year!
The IPCC have finally made corrections to the relevant section of Table 10.2. Here's the original table (click to enlarge):

And here's the corrected version with changes made to Nepal and Sri Lanka, downloaded from the IPCC website on the 4/1/2011:

The complete corrected version of table 10.2 can be found HERE. We have not investigated other claims in the table.
The errors were discussed in a post on WUWT titled  Himalayan warming – pulling another thread from IPCC’s fragile tapestry. Comments in this post clearly identified the source of the error in Sri Lankan temperatures, finding reviewers comments were ignored at least two times.
It's great to see the IPCC finally clean up these errors, however as of 8 January 2011 there has been no acknowledgement of the error, no editorial statement explaining the changes the IPCC has made to its table, the changes are not listed in AR4 WGII errata, and no there has been no recognition of the role of ABC NEWS Watch and WUWT in assisting IPCC correct its report.

You may recall discovery of the errors arose when the ABC attempted to back up a claim in a report it sourced from the BBC that suggested  temperatures were rising faster at Mount Everest than the rest of South Asia. When ABC were requested to provide details of the “Studies” they cited  Table 10.2 from IPCC's AR4 Working Group 2 report.  However, contrary to ABC’s claims this table (see the old version above) showed that the area of fastest rising temperature in South Asia was Sri Lanka, not the Himalaya (and hence not Mt Everest). Both claims have now been shown to be erroneous. Interestingly the original BBC report "Sherpas warn ice melt is making Everest 'dangerous'", has never been corrected.


Funny where ABC's mistakes will ultimately lead. Job Done!


We have added a new page with all posts in this series under the title "Himalaya/IPCC".

Mt Everest melting! But who says it's so? Apparently no-one!

ABC Audience and consumer affairs provide the following reply in regard to a complaint about its report "Melting ice making Everest climbs dangerous".

Received September 2, 2010

Thank you for your further emails of 3 and 9 August.
As previously advised, the ABC sourced the report it published as 'Melting ice making Everest climbs dangerous' from the BBC as part of an established agency arrangement.  When your complaint was received, Audience and Consumer Affairs considered whether a significant error had been made which warranted correction.  We noted that table 10.2 of the Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 did appear to show temperatures rising faster at Mount Everest than in the rest of South Asia.  (Ed. unfortunately it didn't  - see HERE and  HERE and HERE) We do not claim that this was the source relied upon by the BBC in their original story.
We have noted the material you have provided questioning the veracity of a statement in the report (HERE).  Since we have not been able to verify a source for the references to climate, and in view of the brevity and overall focus of the item, we have removed these references from the story and added an Editor's Note to this effect.

Yours sincerely,
Head, Audience and Consumer Affairs

The editorial note reads "Editor's note (September 1, 2010): A reference to studies of climate in the Himalayas has been removed from this story because the ABC was not able to verify its source."

Without a credible, verifiable source this story amounted to unsubstantiated rumour, and now without the climate aspect it is hardly newsworthy and probably should have been left in the editor's bin. If only ABC News had spent a small amount of time checking its sources before getting carried away with unsubstantiated claims of climate alarm, ABC's audience would not have been mislead.  We have yet to receive a response from the BBC. 

We thank ABC Audience and Consumer affairs for taking the time to properly investigate this matter.

Score +1

See also Himalayan warming – pulling another thread from IPCC’s fragile tapestry.

Our earlier reports on this story:

June 4 Mt Everest melting! But who says it's so?

August 4 Update: Mt Everest melting! But who says it's so?

August 9  Update 2: Mt Everest melting! But who says it's so?

Reform the IPCC

ABC provide a brief report titled Review calls for UN climate shake-up on the findings of the Inter Academy Council (IAC) report on IPCC structure and process. The complete IAC report is available HERE, and HERE. 

 Yesterday we highlighted missing opinions on the IPCC process by Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, who stated "The IPCC “peer review” process is not like the one academic journals use, in which reviewers actually have the authority to recommend rejection and require changes; instead it is more like a limited, voluntary public comment process. Since the IPCC gives Lead Authors the sole right to determine content and accept or dismiss comments, it is more like a weblog than an academic report."

Based on the IAC report findings it seems like McKitrick's comments had some merit.

Readers may be interested in an overview of the reports' findings by climate researcher Roger Pielke Jnr titled 

"Report of the IAC Review of the IPCC". This highlights the following statement from the report "If adopted in their entirety, the measures recommended in this report would fundamentally reform IPCC’s management structure while enhancing its ability to conduct an authoritative assessment."

Interesting considering ABC yesterday featured a report with the rather "optimistic" headline: 

UN hopes science review eases climate scepticism that quoted head of the Nairobi-based UN Environment Program (UNEP) Achim Steiner as saying "I'd be surprised, though I don't know, if there are fundamental changes" to the way the IPCC works, he said. 

Seems like someone is in for a rude shock. 


Here are a few headlines from other sources:
Telegraph (UK):  Flawed Science
New York Times: Flaws Found in U.N. Climate Structure
The Hindu:  Sharp criticism for IPCC leadership
Times of India: Pachauri-led IPCC needs fundamental reforms: UN panel
AFP: UN climate panel ordered to make fundamental reforms


Update: Dr Roy Spencer add his thoughts...Dump the IPCC Process, It Cannot Be Fixed

Update 2: Mt Everest melting! But who says it's so?

COMMENT: ABC's use IPCC AR4 WGII report Table 10.2 to back up claims made in a brief report on Mt Everest that stated "Studies show temperatures are rising faster at Mount Everest than in the rest of South Asia"  has thrown up some interesting issues. Most of these are covered at the Watts Up With That post: Himalayan warming – pulling another thread from IPCC’s fragile tapestry. Here's a summary:
1. Table 10.2 indicates that warming in the Himalaya is 0.09º C.yr-1 however warming citing for Si Lanka is 2°C increase per year in central highlands. Clearly ABC's claim doesn't add up. 
2. IPCC provide the incorrect reference to back their figure for the Himalayas. They cite two conference papers and one peer reviewed paper that related to precipitation, not temperature. The correct reference is found to be: Shrestha, Arun B.; Wake, Cameron P.; Mayewski, Paul A.; Dibb, Jack E., 1999. Maximum Temperature Trends in the Himalaya and Its Vicinity: An Analysis Based on Temperature Records from Nepal for the Period 1971–94. Journal of Climate, 9/1/99, Vol. 12 Issue 9 pp:2775-2786.
3. The references for the Sri Lankan Temperatures are not from peer reviewed journals, they relate to precipitation, not temperature.
4. The figure quoted for the Himalaya is the winter trend, not the annual trend. The annual trend is 0.057 º C.yr-1.
5. The highest annual trend for Nepal cited in Shrestha et al., 1999 is 0.09º C.yr-1 for the Trans-Himalaya (an area that excludes Mt Everest).
5. The basis of the Himalayan trends (Shrestha et al 1999) is just 6 weather stations,. The average trend of 5 of these stations dating back to the 1960s is (Max/Min) 0.013º C.yr-1, much less than the 0.057º C.yr-1. All five of these stations are located in the eastern Himalaya. There are problems with use of Kriging method to obtain regional trends.
6. The trend cited for Sri Lankan was brought up in the review of IPCC AR4 WGII:
WUWT reader Justcherrypicked finds:
Timeline:First Order Draft, 10.2.2 Observed climate trends and variability, Table 10.2 does not have a “change in temperature” entry for Sri Lanka, but does have entries for “Change in Precipitation”, and “References”. Which contain, “Increase trend in February and decrease trend in June” and “Chandrapala and Fernando, 1995; Chandrapala, 1996″ respectfully. Clearly, the two references relate to changes in precipitation, not temperature.

The missing entry is noted by Dr. Basnayake in FOD Expert Review Comments. He states:

“”Table 10.2″ under Sri Lanka -change in temperature “minimum and maximum temperatures have been increasing during tthe last centurary. 0.016 C increase per year during 1961-90 period over the entire country. 2.0 C increase per century over the central highlands.” under the references “Basnayake, B.R.S.B. et al 2002″”

. Note he said 2.0 C per century.

Dr. Basnayake’s comments are accepted by the lead authors and is then included in the Second Order Draft (SOD) as

“0.016°C increase per year between 1961-90over entire country, 2°C increase per year in central highlands”

Note they changed century to year, and left out the reference as well.

The error is picked up by Xiuqi Fang during the SOD expert review comments ,

“table 10.2. Check the temperature increasing rate in Sri Lanka. 2C increase per year is too high
(Xiuqi Fang, Beijing Normal University)”

, to which the LA responds “Table entries corrected”. Clearly they are not.

Sadly, Dr. Basnayake does not seem to be involved with the SOD as no reviewer comments for him exist.

Clearly, the IPCC statement “2.0 C increase per year” is an error that was pointed out and ultimately ignored. Additionally, the claim is without a citation.

Both ABC and IPCC have some explaining to do. We have passed this on to the IPCC for comment. 

Himalayan warming

Readers may be interested in this post currently featured on Watts Up With That:

Himalayan warming – pulling another thread from IPCC’s fragile tapestry.

The case for dangerous man made global warming hangs on the wall like a frayed medieval tapestry. By pulling just one loose thread the whole thing starts to unravel. We pulled on of those threads recently…

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) was recently caught making a mistake in areport on melting ice on Mount Everest. The ABC claimed that ”Studies show temperatures are rising faster at Mount Everest than in the rest of South Asia.” When ABC were requested to provide details of the “Studies” they cited Table 10.2 from  IPCC’s AR4 Working Group 2 report. However, contrary to ABC’s claims this table showed that the area of fastest rising temperature in South Asia was Sri Lanka, not the Himalaya (and hence not Mt Everest). ABC’s gaff however served to highlight a few errors made by the IPCC. 

Read the rest at WUWT.