IPCC log jam breaks, another AR5 reviewer breaks ranks

Posted: December 15, 2012 by tchannon in media, Politics

From WUWT “… I asked a prominent climate scientist if I should release my review early in view of the release of the entire second draft report.

He suggested that I do so, and links to the official IPCC spreadsheet version and a Word version of my review are now posted near the top of my homepage at www.forrestmims.org.”

WUWT post here

Dare we hope for more logs?

I doubt it because

“Mims, 62, has no academic training in science but still has carved a career as a science author, lecturer and syndicated columnist. He has written instructional books on electronics and published papers and photographs in some 70 magazines and journals, including Nature, Science and Popular Mechanics. He is a writer and editor for the Society for Amateur Scientists.”

All that matters is being disruptive and doing. Crossing disciplines is I think (okay, I know) a key, bringing in different and fresh knowledge. Lively, fun.

I notice.

“UV-B Network
Forrest M. Mims III is the site operator of the USDA UV-B monitoring site at Texas Lutheran University, Seguin, Texas.”

And UVB is the nearest we can get here to solar TSI strangeness. Maybe it needs a look. I wonder what he knows?

  1. tallbloke says:

    Well, he seems to know quite a lot about water vapour and it’s non-trend as co2 increases.

    Bye bye amplification.
    Never met you Mr Hotspot
    Adieu AGW

  2. oldbrew says:

    As the wheels start coming off the IPCC wagon…

    ‘Flaming spears burn my ears’

  3. michael hart says:

    You’re going to have to help me out with that one, Ford. The abstract, by my reading, seems to be only comparing two studies, and actually saying little about absolute atmospheric humidity changes.

    At a quick glance of the paper, over the period of study 1988-1999, panel a) of Figure 3 (page 248, page numbering of the original document) shows that total global precipitable water fell in both studies. What am I missing?

  4. Doug Proctor says:

    It is interesting how over the last few years a great many questionable aspects of CAGW have been raised without reasonable response, but various people still see the science as settled and the outcome, certain.

    Off the top of my head I have read, researched and questioned substantial claims about:

    1. the modelled, troposphere hotspot,
    2. UHIE corrections,
    3. the low-altitude, low latitude, coastal over-representation of stations,
    4. the 1200-kilometer smoothing that gives datapoints where there is no data,
    5. the non-balanced energy that must be “hiding” in the deep ocean,
    6. the sensitivity of CO2,
    7. the water vapour changes,
    8. the alpine glaciation changes,
    9. the dependence of large rivers on glacial discharge,
    10. the sinking of Pacific islands beneath the waves,
    11. the changes in frequencies of tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts and floods and hailstorms (a Canadian, new one for me),
    12. the decline of polar bear populations,
    13. the “acidification” of the oceans,
    14. the rate of CO2 enhancement of the oceans,
    15. the effect of small pH changes on diatoms and carbonate-using marine organisms,
    16. the effect of raised temperatures on crop yields,
    17. acceleration of continental glacial mass loss
    18. acceleration of sea-level rise,
    19. whether there is additional IR for additional CO2 to take-up to effect warming,
    20. cloud cover changes,
    21. global albedo changes,
    22. changes in TOA TSI,
    23. the measurement of TOA TSI relative to actual planetary SI energy,
    24. TOA TSI as regional changes vs global changes informing global averages,
    25. stochastic, time-variable changes vs deterministic, stable changes
    26. whether the temperature profiles used are the product of a few truly cyclic parameters (akin to 25, above).

    27. the influence of galactic cosmic rays and changes in the Earth’s magnetosphere.

    Any others I’ve missed?

    So each of these legitimately can be questioned. Each of these has an error bar. Many of these work on each other, so that an error in one is compounded. Yet Lewandowsky just said that the certainty with AR5 is now “99%^, up from 90%.

    We are an additive species. We employ magical thinking in our daily lives and put ourselves and other peoples health, wealth and happiness on the line regularly through our delusion that we control more than we do, can predict the unpredictable, and salvage through sacrifice the lost. Can ideas be addictive, or at least the idea that we can distill the chaos of the present to produce a pure, ordered future?

    CAGW is a frustration worthy of a great novel about the perverse nature of social humans. Each time we bring up an item that is clearly not settled, we are told the detail is unimportant, that the rest of the story is nailed down. So we bring up another item, but by then the first item has regained its integrity, and is used as a whole-house defense of the second item. And so on. We point out that every timber in the house has dry-rot and yet we are told that the house has a wonderful paint job, is on the market in an upscale neighbourhood and has created a bidding war, so we again must fussing about incidentals.

    Canada officially quit the Kyoto Protocol today. While saying we are committed to a new protocol for 2015 (that includes China and the US). Japan has said they won’t even talk about a renewed Kyoto agreement. Two insiders released their objections to AR5, not just the report but their objections. It would be nice to think that the repeated questioning of the above 27+ have had a cumulative effect, but by McKibben, you might think that wish wishful.

    Bringing down CAGW is to bring down not just government programs but governments and international agencies. Al Gore can go the way of Harold Camping or Pat Robertson (or Kenneth Lay), but there seems to be something more needed than just logical thinking and critical thinking to bring down the end-of-the-world-through-CO2.

  5. Arfur Bryant says:


    [“…but there seems to be something more needed than just logical thinking and critical thinking to bring down the end-of-the-world-through-CO2.”]

    Amen to that, Doug.

  6. Peter Crawford says:

    The acrid smelll of burning underwear, hitherto but a faint yet ghastly whiff now assails the nostrils of the righteous (and that includes me).

    Actually, I did burn some underpants in a remote Scottish bothy once. The smoke was clean and white as it went up the chimney.

    I don’t know what the smell was like. Don’t have the scientific training.

  7. JohnM says:

    Two points: 1 – publishing your review comments might mean that the IPCC ignores them. That’s not what I want; I want to put the authors on the spot and get some answers out of them. 2 – The IPCC was set up to investigate the threats posed by human-induced warming; it has no charter to do anything else and therefore accusations of bias are a bit over the top. The real problem is that the IPCC is regarded as a world authority on ALL aspects of climate. Probably because there’s no body that has that role the IPCC is regarded as filling that vacuum by the public and it does sometimes stray into that area.

  8. Craig M says:

    John from what you said re point 2 about the IPCC means if no warming threat exists they would need to make it up so they have a reason to exist and get these great paid for trips and backhanders/bribes (like any other body that denies it happens until the body of proof is too big to deny and then it’s always ‘individuals’ rather than the whole corrupt gravy train). Reminds me of the threats thrown up by the security industry to justify their continued existence not to mention a few white papers that I didn’t need much effort to dismiss as fabrications and spin. But of course avuncular scientists are not mere mortals and their integrity rises above the base desires of human falibility that anyone else suffers.

    WhyI believe every aspect of extreme weather events is being jumped on by the climate brigade. Although I am sadly reminded of Hitlers Big Lie in the actions of those pulling the strings (instead of those trying to bathe in the reflected glory of planet saving).

  9. vvenema says:

    The title “another AR5 reviewer breaks ranks” is almost funny. Also Anthony Watts is ICPP expert reviewer. According to Wikipedia, Mims is a long time climate ostrich.

    This dataset is just 22 years long. This is to short for a reliable trend estimate. No wonder the trend is not statistically significant.

    Furthermore, the authors of the paper explicitly write that the NASA NVAP-M dataset is only suited to study seasonal and interannual (year to year) variability in water vapor. For example, because the number and types of satellites changed during this 22 years. And they explicitly write that they did not make a trend analysis.

    For more details, see my blog post.

  10. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Yes, JohnM, re, your point 2. The Hadley Centre (like IPCC) was set up by Mrs Thatcher, to study not the cause but the effects of climate change. The cause was already known for certain – the burning of coal and the greenhouse phenomenon. What was not known were the effects. These were anticipated to be so dire as to deter public sympathy for coal miners whose industrial action against the Heath Gov’t had almost brought UK to its knees. In the event the Clean Air Act did the trick and precipitated the rush for gas. The whole fabrication was made redundant. Later Thatcher herself scoffed at the idea of AGW.
    Naturally once institutions are set up they redefine their own purposes as they go along, seeking objectives that will maximise the strength of their claim to resources and constantly adapting, not to addressing real issues but to changes in the sources of funding.
    The futile search for causes of climate change will continue to create one of the few markets for supercomputing. I say ‘futile” because, as we all know, IPCC announced early on that climate was far too complex and and its behaviour so chaotic that its future states were inherently unpredictable.
    Now weather and climate are being conflated to provide the model builders with more immediate and lucrative markets for their soothsaying. This suits the growing gang of corporate climate risk assessors who, like the health and safety departments, depend on both real and imagined threats for their survival. In future, it will be corporate shareholders, rather than the taxpayers, who will stump up. This will take climate ‘science’ out of the public scene and reduce the complaints about the waste of public money.
    Meantime the need for ‘clean’ energy production will remain as an axiom of governments, energy costs will escalate, demand will reduce as users modulate their consumption to fit the tariffs.
    Thousands will die when the cold hits us during the next few years – not of the cold but of poverty!