Environment & Energy

CRH

(1,553 posts)

45. Why was he asked to do draft reviews for AR4? ...

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:47 AM

Dec 2012

The peer reviewed consensus of AR4 has underestimated the rate of Arctic ice melt, the timing of methane releases in the ocean and the permafrost, the levels of ocean acidity that puts crustaceans at risk, underestimated the global mean temperature rise above pre industrial levels that would put several different ecosystems at risk. So far the politicized consensus peer reviews have missed the severity of the effects of just .8*C rise; in the ocean, on land, in the weather patterns, and in the ocean currents.

Why are government minders changing scientific conclusions by insisting on clearing the language that is used in final drafts? The people making these decisions are administrators and policy wonks, not scientists, yet their input consistently waters down the science.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author [View all] Nederland Dec 2012 OP

No good deed goes unpunished... nt GliderGuider Dec 2012 #1

TATMAFAATFEOWTA! LiberalEsto Dec 2012 #2

Sorry, here's glossary: Nederland Dec 2012 #3

TY! LiberalEsto Dec 2012 #4

What constitutes an "extremist"? NoOneMan Dec 2012 #5

People that make claims not supported by the peer reviewed literature Nederland Dec 2012 #6

Oh. In that case... NoOneMan Dec 2012 #7

Fair enough Nederland Dec 2012 #8

ca�tas�tro�phe - definition: NoOneMan Dec 2012 #9

Those papers are based upon outdated assumptions Nederland Dec 2012 #26

"Unprecedented Seasonal Heat" != "Hydrological Droughts" NoOneMan Dec 2012 #32

IPCC has a record of always underestimating the effects of climate change. Speck Tater Dec 2012 #10

And there's no sign that we are deviating from the highest-carbon scenarios. GliderGuider Dec 2012 #11

Its a consequence of the merger of politics and science that we see here NoOneMan Dec 2012 #12

So, as bad as it is, it's as good as we're going to get... GliderGuider Dec 2012 #13

Always? Nederland Dec 2012 #14

Yup. Link.... Speck Tater Dec 2012 #17

That report is pretty harsh on the IPCC GliderGuider Dec 2012 #19

I'm curious Nederland Dec 2012 #22

No, I don't. GliderGuider Dec 2012 #24

The models run cold Nederland Dec 2012 #28

Interesting. GliderGuider Dec 2012 #29

Here you go... Nederland Dec 2012 #33

Thank you! nt GliderGuider Dec 2012 #34

Your link only addresses sea level rise Nederland Dec 2012 #21

I stand corrected. Thanks for setting me straight. nt Speck Tater Dec 2012 #25

Not that Himilaya Glacier denier crap again Viking12 Dec 2012 #35

It seems as if the IPCC's job is to promote BAU. joshcryer Dec 2012 #16

No, its job is to summarize the current scientific consensus Nederland Dec 2012 #23

Whose job is it to draw conclusions? GliderGuider Dec 2012 #27

Ours Nederland Dec 2012 #30

How so? GliderGuider Dec 2012 #31

Sadly, that does seem to be the case. n/t AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #38

..and yours is to cherry-pick? Viking12 Dec 2012 #36

There is no scientific consensus about the effects of climate change. joshcryer Dec 2012 #44

They don't even assess drought. Hopefully that's changed before AR5 is finished. joshcryer Dec 2012 #15

The word drought appears 62 times Nederland Dec 2012 #18

Right, low confidence. See page 18 of the SPM. joshcryer Dec 2012 #43

I'm confused Nederland Dec 2012 #103

Yes, I think you're reading it wrong. GliderGuider Dec 2012 #105

In this case in particular it means they're uncertain about... joshcryer Dec 2012 #114

As GG said, "low confidence" means they are unclear, uncertain. joshcryer Dec 2012 #111

All we need to do is look at the images from AR5 GliderGuider Dec 2012 #20

Good analysis, Nederland, thanks for posting. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #37

Excuse me, has this new release dealt with, ... CRH Dec 2012 #39

Still waiting for that... GliderGuider Dec 2012 #40

IPCC reports only address peer review literature Nederland Dec 2012 #42

That was kind of my point. GliderGuider Dec 2012 #46

If you open it up to non-peer reviewed material... Nederland Dec 2012 #49

Open *what* up exactly? GliderGuider Dec 2012 #50

Ok, I misunderstood Nederland Dec 2012 #51

Yeah, pretty much. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #52

DU isn't quite the same as a public discussion GliderGuider Dec 2012 #55

Which is how I'm beginning to think the IPCC should conduct it's business as well. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #63

Huh? GliderGuider Dec 2012 #74

David Wasdell Nederland Dec 2012 #41

Why was he asked to do draft reviews for AR4? ... CRH Dec 2012 #45

"The people making these decisions are administrators and policy wonks" GliderGuider Dec 2012 #47

A very good question Nederland Dec 2012 #48

Yep. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #53

Ignorant. Viking12 Dec 2012 #56

Please, stop the provocations(Ignorant? Clowns?). AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #59

If you don't like it, don't post ignorant crap or just go away. Viking12 Dec 2012 #60

Look who's talking. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #62

It's clear you're not here to discuss in good faith. Viking12 Dec 2012 #65

Oh please, stop the hypocrisy. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #66

I was right. Viking12 Dec 2012 #67

But Malcom Light! But Malcom Light! NoOneMan Dec 2012 #68

Average Joe, you are gone hatrack Dec 2012 #70

Come on hatrack... Nederland Dec 2012 #86

Nope, sorry - and the Chicken Little cartoon was the last straw - hot-button for me hatrack Dec 2012 #90

I don't get "paid" anything. AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #69

What about lead authors? Nederland Dec 2012 #71

Are you therefore suggesting the IPCC has little credibility? NoOneMan Dec 2012 #72

No Nederland Dec 2012 #80

for instance? Viking12 Dec 2012 #73

Sorry I thought it was common knowledge at this point Nederland Dec 2012 #75

Ah. You are angry about the IPCC mosquito projections? NoOneMan Dec 2012 #76

No Nederland Dec 2012 #81

Depends NoOneMan Dec 2012 #83

Damn straight Nederland Dec 2012 #88

So you can't really provide any names. Viking12 Dec 2012 #77

So you really have no proof. Nederland Dec 2012 #82

Provide some names. Viking12 Dec 2012 #85

The names of the lead authors are on first page of every chapter. Nederland Dec 2012 #87

So which one are you suggesting isn't qualified? Viking12 Dec 2012 #91

The criticism Reiter was making was of SAR, not AR4. Nederland Dec 2012 #93

None of the people you named were authors of SAR, WG2, Chapter 18 Viking12 Dec 2012 #95

You are correct Nederland Dec 2012 #98

On what basis do you insist he is not qualified, ... CRH Dec 2012 #54

Cute, sounds like the IPCC won't include permafrost in AR5. joshcryer Dec 2012 #57

Yeah, and that is only a recommendation, ... CRH Dec 2012 #78

Those special assessments fly under the radar anyway. joshcryer Dec 2012 #79

I think clouds were once thought to be negative feedbacks, ... CRH Dec 2012 #97

I know of none historical time scale negative feedbacks. joshcryer Dec 2012 #99

I think aerosols have negative feedbacks Nederland Dec 2012 #101

Yeah, that's true, but civilization kinda hates smog. joshcryer Dec 2012 #102

Aerosols = forcing. Not feedback Viking12 Dec 2012 #106

Aerosols are both Nederland Dec 2012 #109

Actually, he does have a point. Aerosols require action by humans. joshcryer Dec 2012 #112

Thanks, my thoughts were muddled at the time. joshcryer Dec 2012 #113

"...will not be included in any of the temperature models" NoOneMan Dec 2012 #58

Isn't it perhaps possible that methane may not have as much of a impact..... AverageJoe90 Dec 2012 #61

You aren't allowed to allude to that "possibility" without a leaked IPCC AR5 snippet to back you up NoOneMan Dec 2012 #64

Laud the virtues of scientific consensus? Nederland Dec 2012 #89

2 points NoOneMan Dec 2012 #104

Proof? Nederland Dec 2012 #107

Have you heard of permafrost thawing? nt NoOneMan Dec 2012 #108

Yes, and the subject is considered in this report (nt) Nederland Dec 2012 #110

He is not qualified according to the criteria Rajendra Pachauri claimed was used Nederland Dec 2012 #84

Pachauri made that statement about authors, not reviewers. Viking12 Dec 2012 #92

You are correct Nederland Dec 2012 #94

Reviewer doesn't mean author. Viking12 Dec 2012 #96

So it doesn't bother you that reviewers are often unqualified? Nederland Dec 2012 #100

David Wasdell is relevant for his criticism of scientific reticence. joshcryer Dec 2012 #115