IPCC report ‘not a scientifically rigorous document’ says professor

Posted: December 20, 2018 by oldbrew in Analysis, Critique, IPCC, research

Not exactly shock news perhaps, but words like ‘extreme’ and ‘unrealistic’ ought to be embarrassing for those who summoned over 20,000 people from around the world to Poland to spend several days discussing it.

From The GWPF.

London, 20 December: One of Europe’s most eminent climate scientists has documented the main scientific reasons why the recent UN climate summit failed to welcome the IPCC’s report on global warming of 1.5°C.

In a paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation Professor Ray Bates of University College Dublin explains the main reasons for the significant controversy about the latest IPCC report within the international community.

The IPCC’s Special Report on a Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) was released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in advance of the recent COP24 meeting in Katowice, Poland, but was not adopted by the meeting due to objections by a number of governments.

Professor Bates examines some key aspects of the SR1.5 report. He assesses if the IPCC report exhibits a level of scientific rigour commensurate with the scale of its extremely costly and highly disruptive recommendation that carbon emissions be reduced to zero by mid-century.

The paper concludes that such a level of scientific rigour is not present in the report. Specifically, SR1.5 is deficient in scientific rigour in the following respects:

● It departs from the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report in conveying an increased sense of planetary emergency without giving rigorous scientific reasons for doing so.

● It fails to communicate to policymakers a considerable body of important observationally-based research evidence that has accumulated since the Fifth Assessment which reduces the sense of a looming emergency.

● It fails to communicate important information made public by climate modellers since the Fifth Assessment regarding the empirical tuning of models to achieve desired results.

The paper concludes that, in view of these deficiencies, the SR1.5 report does not merit being regarded by policymakers as a scientifically rigorous document.

“There is much recent observational and scientific evidence that the IPCC report has failed to include and which supports a more considered mitigation strategy than the extreme and unrealistic measures called for in the SR1.5 report,” said Prof Bates.

Continued here.

About the author
Professor J. Ray Bates is Adjunct Professor of Meteorology in the Meteorology and Climate Centre at University College Dublin. He was formerly Professor of Meteorology at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and a Senior Scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre. In his early career he was Head of Research at the Irish Meteorological Service. He obtained a bachelor’s degree in physics at University College Dublin and a PhD in meteorology at MIT. His PhD supervisor at MIT was Jule G. Charney, chairman of the committee that wrote the 1979 ‘Charney Report’ on the effects of carbon dioxide on climate. Professor Bates has been the recipient of a number of awards for his scientific work, including the 2009 Vilhelm Bjerknes Medal of the European Geosciences Union. He is a former President of the Irish Meteorological Society. He has served as an Expert Reviewer of the IPCC’s Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports. He is a member of the Royal Irish Academy and the Academia Europaea and a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and the Royal Meteorological Society.

  1. oldbrew says:

    its extremely costly and highly disruptive recommendation that carbon emissions be reduced to zero by mid-century.

    The way things are going they’ll still be flying around the world to discuss this in 2050.

  2. Dodgy Geezer says:

    There will, I assume, shortly be a vacancy for a professor in the Meteorology Department at University College, Dublin…

  3. oldbrew says:

    He has served as an Expert Reviewer of the IPCC’s Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports

    Did the IPCC read his reviews? If they did, they or somebody else ignored the bits they didn’t like when doing the summary…

    The central attribution statement of Working Group I in the Fifth Assessment2 was as follows:
    It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperaturefrom 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

    This statement did not necessarily attribute all the observed post-1950 warming to anthropogenic effects, nor did it attribute the substantial early 20th century warming (1910–1945) to such effects. In contrast to this caution, SR1.5 portrays all the global warming observed since the late 19th century as being human-induced (see Figure 1). [bold added]

    SR = Summary Report
    – – –
    If that isn’t making stuff up to suit an agenda, what is it?

  4. ivan says:

    Has anything produced by the IPCC been scientifically rigorous? Their computer models that all the garbage is based on might pass UN pseudo science inspection but they would never pass engineering requirements for reliable use.

    Since they put garbage into garbage models is it any wonder they get garbage out that is then fiddled to fit the agenda (21 &30).

  5. oldbrew says:

    If they mangle their own report in the summary, there’s never going to be much credibility to it.

    Prof. Ray Bates says:
    Quantifying cloud radiative effects with precision, however, is beyond the capability of present day climate science. For as long as this remains the case, modelling the climate system’s response to increasing GHG emissions will remain an area of uncertainty.

    Try telling that to the media in a summary report – or anywhere else 😂

    How does that square with anthropogenic ‘forcing’ being ‘extremely likely’? More than a hint of guesswork there IMO.

    400 parts per million of CO2 is surely too tiny to do much to the other 999,600 ppm on its own.
    Prof RB: it is also known that the dominant greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere is naturally occurring water vapour, which is far more abundant than the trace gases [bold added]

    Whether ‘greenhouse gas’ is a valid term is another matter, discussed ad nauseam on this blog and elsewhere.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Another one:
    In fact, the satellite temperatures, though showing a warming trend of 0.13◦C /decade
    over the full observational period 1979–2018, show very little warming since the year 2000.
    Scafetta et al. have performed a statistical analysis in which the prominent El Niño signal in
    the satellite temperatures in the period 2000-2016 is removed from the record,7 and found
    that the remaining warming trend in this period is only of the order of 0.04◦C /decade.

    – – –
    very little warming since the year 2000 – sounds like the pause that they keep trying to say never happened.

    The SR1.5 report does not discuss satellite-observed temperature trends and does not address the problem of why they differ so markedly from the GMSTs. This is a serious defect, since there are strong reasons to believe that satellite temperatures are more reliable indicators of the true rate of global warming than the GMST; the satellite temperature measurements have near-global coverage while surface temperature measurements are sparse and irregularly distributed.

    But industrialised urban areas are more likely to give the desired results 😉

    Apart from the issue of coverage, satellite temperatures have the added advantage of not being influenced by urban heat island and land use change effects in the way the GMST is. Urbanization is currently leading to rapid temperature change in many cities around the world relative to the surrounding rural areas.

    Still another 10 pages of the report after all this.

  7. USAstrologer says:

    They ignore the true cause of Global Warming and Global Cooling.
    Sun, Moon, Planets, and Cosmic Rays.

  8. stpaulchuck says:

    oldbrew says:
    December 20, 2018 at 3:59 pm

    “The SR1.5 report does not discuss satellite-observed temperature trends and does not address the problem of why they differ so markedly from the GMSTs. ”

    add to that, the balloon data are very similar to the satellite data and ALSO do not agree with the land measurements and the faked up ‘estimated’ values. So two out of three are wrong. Yeah. That’s real sciency. Or something.

  9. oldbrew says:

    They told us Arctic summer sea ice would be gone by 2008/13/15/18 etc. etc. but nothing remotely close has happened. They are flying blind while claiming to know the way.

    Novices posing as experts :/

  10. hunter says:

    As others have pointed out, the IPCC has never been a scientifically sound process. It has always been that dangerous mixture: Politics with a sciencey veneer.
    The earlier IPCC reports were apparently not alarmist enough and the political process it serves brought the current report up to full apocalyptic claptrap mode.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s