Saturday
Jun262010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Another IPCC scandal?
Jun 26, 2010 Climate: other Another problem with the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report seems to have emerged. Apparently a sceptic blog in the Czech Republic is reporting that the IPCC's conclusions on the lack of a solar influence on climate were based on a single paper by Lean and Frohlich and the IPCC ignored reviewers' objections over the lack of support for the idea. What is worse, Lean and Frohlich are accused of adjusting their data in an inappropriate fashion.
Story here.
Reader Comments (16)
I refuse to believe that scientists would alter their data to their advantage! I mean, obviously they have made all their data available so it can be checked?
Yes, of course their data is available ;)
regards
mailman
Objection to this was raised by the Norwegian government as shown in the AR4 second draft comments below (and essentially dismissed by the IPCC):
"I would encourage the IPCC to [re-]consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section about solar forcing hangs on one single paper in which J. Lean is a coauthor. I
Look at the objection in the draft comments of the IPCC..
Expert and Government Review Comments on the Scond rder draft.
http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7786003?n=6&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25
Definitions from my rather old dictionary:
Lean: Thin, meagre, poor
Frolic: Play pranks, merry making
Lean & Frohlich : A bad joke ?
Sorry, haven't read their paper, can't attack their science, so thought I'd just make fun of their names.....
Yours sincerely,
Littlebottom (Ivor)
I hesitate to speak for him, much preferring he do it himself, but I'm quite sure Leif Svalgaard disdains the IPCC.
==================
Already dubbed as "JudithGate"
http://co2insanity.com/2010/06/25/judithgate-ipcc-thinks-one-person-is-a-consensus/?sms_ss=digg
Dr Curry, please accept our apologies for any confusion
Maybe Judith Lean should ask Lord Oxburgh to investigate JudithGate.
Isn't that how it is done in climate circles?
This is a better English version http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/judithgate_ipcc_consensus_was_only_one_solar_physicist
Instead of "hide the decline" we have "hide the incline". Is this another scientific 'trick'?
Perhaps climate scientists are in need of some massage therapy to ease their furrowed brows.
This latest story needs thorough investigation since it has huge scientific significance and potential to go viral.
Mac
"Perhaps climate scientists are in need of some massage therapy to ease their furrowed brows."
You mean like Al Gore? I hope not!
Here
I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.
As in many aspects of this disgraceful episode in science, the IPCC knew the answer - why the hell would they need to provide any supporting evidence.
Pharos, I agree that this requires some careful cogitation. It is potentially very, very significant.
AFAIK, Leif Svalgaard considers sun activity and total solar irradiance not very variable. His latest presentation here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.ppt
Leif contends there is a steady baseline below which TSI doesn't fall at minimum. This last is just a bit below that. But IANAexpertsolarphysicist.
================
Cue another Monbiot-Delingpole fight! Get ready with another cartoon Josh!
Sounds much like the Antarctic sea ice story, where the IPCC relied on a book chapter by IPCC author Comiso that showed only a 0.5% increase, ignoring the many reviewed papers that showed a larger increase.
In the first draft, the increase was statistically significant, so they went back and fiddled the data to make it insignificant.
see
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ar4seaice
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/yet-another-incorrect-ipcc-assessment-antarctic-sea-ice-increase/