Dear Alan, As you correctly point out, IPCC only reviews published work. It does not itself do research so does not use a climate model - it reviews papers describing model application or the application of ensembles of models. If you think there is something wrong / outdated in the current evidence, the best way to get that reflected is to publish it in the peer-reviewed literature so that it can be assessed as part of the next assessment report (and any relevant Special Reports published during the "AR6 cycle"). The level of evidence and agreement of statements made by IPCC also need to be assessed, so findings in the minority (e.g. only 1 paper in 100 suggests a certain trend) would probably be labelled as limited evidence, limited agreement or something similar.
The IPCC summarises the science and is precluded from being policy prescriptive - it is not the job of the IPCC to promote policy - that is the job of policy makers. There are no 30 pieces of silver in taking on an authorship role for the IPCC - it is unpaid and extremely time-consuming - I think most IPCC authors volunteer to do so because they think it is useful. Having served in various authorship capacities, I find the IPCC bureaucratic and slow, but ultimately transparent and honest in its assessment. If you of John or anyone else thinks anything reported is incorrect - publish the evidence to the contrary - this is how we make progress. Cheers, Pete --- Prof. Pete Smith, FRSB, FRSE Professor of Soils & Global Change (http://www.abdn.ac.uk/ibes/people/profiles/pete.smith), Science Director of Scotland's ClimateXChange (www.climatexchange.org.uk), Director-Food Systems for Scottish Food Security Alliance-Crops (www.sfsa-crops.org) University of Aberdeen Theme Leader for Environment & Food Security (www.abdn.ac.uk/environment-food-security/), Editor, Global Change Biology Editor, Global Change Biology Bioenergy Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, 23 St Machar Drive, Room G45 Aberdeen, AB24 3UU, Scotland, UK Tel: +44 (0)1224 272702 Fax: +44 (0)1224 272703 E-mail: [email protected] Highly Cited Researcher: http://hcr.stateofinnovation.thomsonreuters.com/ Researcher ID: http://www.researcherid.com/rid/G-1041-2010 Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=7P9W6pYAAAAJ&hl=en -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alan Gadian Sent: 07 December 2016 08:48 To: John Nissen Cc: Michael MacCracken; P. Wadhams; David Lewis; geoengineering; Kevin Anderson; [email protected]; Greg Rau; Peter Wadhams; Kevin Lister; Sev Clarke; Michael Hayes Subject: Re: [geo] Negative Emissions: Arrows in the Quiver, Life Preserver, and/or Moral Hazard? John, Without wanting to join in, the basic point is the way the IPCC was set up is to review past published work. Thus as Mike implies, the terms of reference are severely limited, and always will be. I think/know they are wrong, but essentially in its present form it is completely hamstrung. I have asked to join for the next round, but am likely to be unsuccessful. Many scientists have taken the 30 pieces of silver, but in essence the panel are trying to do their best. The major tool they use, the climate model in its present form, is fundamentally flawed and that is their Achilles heel. I agree with Mike, the more that we can illustrate that the past science is inaccurate / outdated, the best chance we have. The public around the world are beginning to object to the status quo politics, and if you have the time finding the errors and challenging the results, where they are based on wrong is the way to go ... So in essence keep going ... Best wishes Alan On Tue, 6 Dec 2016, John Nissen wrote: > Hi Mike, > > I am all for a scientific evidence-based policy. You ask me to be > careful about who is responsible for what, and who should be acting. > I will give my personal view as a concerned scientist looking at the > situation as dispassionately as possible. > > I would expect IPCC to describe the state of Earth System, the > direction and speed of travel away from Holocene conditions, the > possible future scenarios (preferably based on how the planet has > behaved in the geological past), and the associated risks for human society. > > The IPCC should then propose what can be done to reduce these risks to > a minimum. These descriptions and proposed actions should be > quantitative as well as qualitative and specify time limitations. > Scientists and engineers can then suggest technical solutions where > appropriate. > > Governments, collaborating internationally, can facilitate appropriate > actions, through regulations, direct funding and financial incentives. > Entrepreneurs can seize opportunities to implement partial solutions > or approaches to "help the planet" in anticipation of support, knowing > that they have a clear steer from IPCC. > > These were my expectations - not what I am seeing from IPCC. > > The IPCC gives an impression the Earth System moving slowly and > gradually towards a warmer climate by the end of century, without > significant danger (e.g. from climate change, sea level rise, ocean > acidification or methane > outburst) unless the temperature reaches 2C above pre-industrial > Holocene condition. The word "danger" does not occur once in AR5 that I > could find. > > Unfortunately the evidence from observed trends paints a very > different picture. The Earth System is moving ever faster away from > the Holocene norm, especially in the Arctic, where temperature rise, > snow decline, sea ice decline, methane emissions and Greenland Ice > Sheet melt have all been accelerating over the past thirty years. The > sea ice is in a death spiral, according to the world's leading expert > on sea ice, Professor Wadhams. We could get locked into an Arctic which is > seasonal free of sea ice by 2020. > > Climate change is now all too apparent, with tens or even hundreds of > millions people suffering as a result of drought brought about by, or > aggravated by, climate change. Arctic amplification is implicated in > the remarkable growth in weather extreme events over the past thirty > years, including floods and droughts. > > Intervention has become essential if we are to minimise risk of > catastrophes of one kind or another. What I don't see from IPCC is > any sense of urgency. Michael Hayes wrote on this thread (Nov 30): > > "The greatest moral hazard is, in my humble opinion, being too slow > and rigid in developing our options and being too late in deployment > to actually represent a meaningful effort." > > > IPCC always talks about intervention becoming necessary in the future. > It seems that IPCC's motto is "later rather than sooner". The > precautionary principle is thrown out of the window. > > > The result is that, when somebody seeks financial backing for a > proposal which tackles the major issues with a view to restoring the > climate system, there is no support from the scientific advisers who > would normally advise potential backers on such matters. > > > Thus nothing gets done, while the situation becomes increasingly dire. > > > Yet climate restoration is on the cards, if we seize the opportunity now. > > > Kind regards, John > > > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Michael MacCracken > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > John--I know you don't like it, but scientists and the IPCC are > pro-science--they summarize what science says, those are their > findings and communication. > > On what SHOULD be done, that gets into policy and into all sorts > of questions in addition to and beyond science, so scientists > have no special right to be the decider and tend therefore to > refrain making claims based on their occupation while perhaps > supporting a position as a citizen. > > The question of what to do is really one before the > decision-makers of the COP, with input coming from all sorts of > groups. Scientists involved with IPCC work to keep the > statements relating to science to be scientifically accurate--it > is up to the public (hopefully the knowledgeable public) to be > influencing the decision-makers, etc. > > I really do wish you would be more careful in making clear where > the responsibility really lies and who should be acting. Trying > to make scientists into advocates is just running against a > long-held tradition that makes good sense for our society as a > whole. There will be pushback against these movements that want > to simply ignore science or abuse it, and it is key in that > regard that science not just be viewed as one advocacy group > (for other than the scientific tradition and support of its > findings). > > Best, Mike > > > On 11/28/16 9:54 AM, John Nissen wrote: > Hi Mike and Alan, > I think we are on the same side when it comes to what matters. Are we > not all fighting for a better future for humanity on this planet we > all share? And doesn't this involve doing something to prevent the > situation getting a lot worse in the Arctic, even when there is > disagreement between models and observations over just how bad the > situation has become and how quickly the situation is deteriorating? > Surely the international scientific community should pull together and > agree on action to improve the situation which has a chance of > success? Surely some kind of interim intervention to restore Arctic > albedo is required, even if only on a precautionary principle if you > think the most optimistic models are correct. And shouldn't we > prepare for intervention as quickly as possible to give ourselves the > greatest chance of successful deployment, while continuing research > and developing better models to optimise that deployment? And isn't > preparation for deployment justified even if it doesn't prove > necessary? > > Preparation need not take years. There was a discussion on the Ebola > outbreak on the radio this morning. They said how the procedure for > drug testing which would normally take years had been cut down to six > weeks - but even that was too long to save many lives. > > There has been a huge antagonism to geoengineering built up over the > years, so that most scientists are now against it. But our job is to > recommend what is best for humanity. We need to use some > geoengineering techniques for a limited period to get the planet back > on course - reversing climate change and restoring the climate to > Holocene-like conditions. We must not fail to give good advice just > because of public sentiment against geoengineering. > > Cheers, John > > > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Michael MacCracken > <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alan--I don't disagree that there are problems > with models, just there have been with various types > of observations that have to get resolved (e.g., the > Microwave Sounding Unit time series, ocean > observations as types of instruments changed, etc.). > And the full set of observations can also be > incomplete, not accounting for all that may matter. > What science needs to do is work out why--not > believing either in some absolute sense. > > On the Arctic situation, I was just noting the > obvious, namely that if you drive even perfect > models while not accounting for some particular > forcing, that could well be a cause of/contributor > to the disagreement between results of model > simulations for ice volume and extent and > observations--it is not always the physics that is > the problem. > > I'd generalize your statement that history (here > meaning of scientific discovery) has not looked > favourable on those who ignore the observations, > however erratic or unreliable, to suggest that those > who carefully seek to understand the differences > between available observations and available models > (theory), accepting neither without question, have > been those who have most advanced the science (and > in so doing they must look at everything skeptically > and then also look for what we may not even be > considering). > > Best, Mike > > > On 11/27/16 1:54 PM, Alan Gadian wrote: > > > Mike, > > Sorry for the delay .. in India. > > I am afraid I am someone on the "other > side" in that I use NWP and climate > models for my living. Thus I can speak > as someone who has used them a lot! > > There are good things about climate > models as well as bad things. The fear I > have is that the whole of the IPCC is > based on climate models, and that is the > issue. There are huge differences > between the poles, and these are largely > ignored. There are other processes > which are not replicated in > climate models. Why a double ITCZ? Why > little Indian monsoon. One can explain > these features ... > > I note the papers, but I am afraid, > whether it is 70km mountains on Venus > (as proposed by NASA) history has not > looked favourably on those who ignore > the observations, however erratic / > unreliable. > > Thanks for your comments > Alan > > > > > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, Michael MacCracken > wrote: > > > Dear Alan--When > observationalists are clear > the observations of ice > thinning and retreat are > right, and the modelers are > insisting that the physics > is the model is properly > constructed > and correct, then, if there > are inconsistencies between > the two, what needs to be > looked at > very carefully is the > forcing, or more > specifically, the changes in > the forcing over time. > Specifically, there have > been changes over time in > the sulfate and black carbon > forcing that > affect the solar radiation > budget and also cloud > albedo, and there have been > changes in the > tropospheric ozone > concentration (as well of > the greenhouse gases, which > need to be treated > specifically and not using > CO2e). I'd suggest that all > it would take are some > relatively > modest problems in some of > these forcings as the region > has gone through the issue > of Arctic > springtime haze and the its > "clean up" as SO2 emissions > in Europe and North America > grew and > then cleaned up much of the > SO2 emissions, as the black > carbon loadings changed as > growth of > diesel emissions of black > carbon changed and were > somewhat reduced, and then > as China has > grown. Calculations in > Navarro et al, 2016 make > clear that changes in > forcing can influence > the Arctic. I'd just suggest > that a hypothesis that I > think likely needs some > exploration is > that it is the time history > of the forcings that could > explain the difference > between the > observations and the models, > and that it might be more > productive to look at this > alternative > hypothesis as a way of > explaining their > differences. > > I'd also note that I suggest > this as only one alternative > hypothesis--there may well > be > others. In any case, I'd > suggest finding some > possible explanation(s) for > the differences and > to get working on > reconciling and > understanding the reasons > for the differences--which > is > what science generally aims > at doing rather than simply > blaming the other side. > > Best, Mike MacCracken > > > On 11/23/16 1:50 PM, Alan > Gadian wrote: > Reto and Peter, > > ECMWF is the best forecast > model in the world. If you > had attended the change of > directorship last Spring, > you would have heard them > say that the ice model > predictions > ( and they have the HIGHEST > resolution forecasting > model) are terrible, do not > predict > changes and have little > connection with reality. My > climate model has taken 250 > days > on 12,000 cray cores and I > only achieve 20km > resolution. ( I estimate I > used about 2 > million dollars of > electricity in the end, as > some of the model is at > 2-3km resolution. > It has possibly been one of > the biggest projects on > ARCHER. > > ECMWF can run globally at > 2-4km resolution. How is it > also that Martin Miller , > who > masterminded much of the > ECMWF model said of AR5 , > that the clouds were so > badly > predicted that the radiative > balance is not correct, and > the climate models could not > be trusted for clouds and > radiation? He was one of > the worlds best experts,but > ignored. > > Also then, How is it that > then the climate models can > do so much better than the > best > weather prediction models in > the world? When the data > evidence of the HUGE changes > in > ice volume and extent, are > so apparent, so much so that > by the time AR5 went to > press , > six months after writing, > the ar5 ice extent > predictions were outside the > predicted > range for the worst > scenario, how can the ar5 > community still try to sell > the story? > Maybe Trump took his lead > from the climate modellors? > > I have had endless arguments > with Piers Forster , another > lead author on ar5 about > this. scientists who know > about modelling the weather > have been ignored. You do > not > get papers published which > day that models are wrong, > only when you say how great > they > are. > > In essence ,after AR3, it > has become a gravy train for > academic careers based > largely > on CXXP models. In a short > time these models will be > shown to be catestrophically > wrong, and all that is done > is to pillory those who try > to point out the true > science. > > > Regards > Alan. > > > T --- Alan Gadian, NCAS, > UK. Email: > [email protected] & > [email protected] > Tel: +44 / 0 775 451 9009 > T --- > > On 23 Nov 2016, at 15:32, P. > Wadhams <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear Dr Knutti, I > would like to intervene in > this seemingly interminable > thread to draw > attention to errors which > you have made when you > mention my > work. > > 1. " But the natural > variability is very large > (e.g. Kay 2011, > Swart 2015, > Screen 2013, 2016). There is > no reason why short > term trends > could simply be > extrapolated, and the > predictions > by Peter Wadhams > of sea ice disappearing by > today have not > happened so far" > > a) I completely agree > that natural variability is > very large and stress > this in my book "A > Farewell to Ice" which I > suspect you have not read. > In > the book I stress that > it is the TREND which is > rapidly downwards towards > zero, not that every > successive year features a > monotonic decrease in > summer ice volume. > And, despite the newspaper > reports which seems to > constitute your > reading matter on my work, I > do NOT forecast that the ice > volume will go to zero > in a specific year (like > this year), only that it > will go to zero in a > very small window of years > (of which this year forms > one) as opposed to the > decades which are still > forecast by the worst of the > current models. You > might also care to glance at > the current NSIDC charts > for ice volume (Arctic > and Antarctic) which show an > extraordinary turndown > since September > suggesting that the > co-operative collapse which > I have long > projected through my > thickness measurements is > now happening. b) Why can't > short term trends be > extrapolated? Firstly, they > are not short term - they > date back to the 1980s > when observations began. And > secondly, please name > the magical effect > which will cause the trend > to become invalid and the > ice > volume to pick up > again. > > 2. > Maybe the models > are missing something, but > it's just as plausible > (and > in most > scientist's view more > likely) that the models are > largely > consistent with observations > within natural > variability. > > Your idea of "most > scientists" is an odd one. > When the observations show a > rapid declining trend > leading to zero very soon, > how can models (which > predict decades of > continued summer sea ice) be > consistent with these > observations? They are > simply not consistent, and > it is clear that by "most > scientists" you mean > "many modellers", some of > whom have never seen sea > ice. > > 3. I'm not > downplaying the > strong changes in the > Arctic, but the science > suggests a > fairly linear (and > reversible) relationship > between > Arctic sea ice > and temperature with large > variability > superimposed. In > my view they do not support > a "death spiral". > > Well, it's obvious > that there is a linear > relationship between air > temperature history > and sea ice thickness. The > "degree days of cold" > analysis dates back to > the 1950s and was amplified > by Maykut and > Untersteiner's > analysis in 1971. But if air > temperature is increasing > rapidly, as it is, > then thickness will decline > just as rapidly, leading to > a period in summer > with zero thickness, in > other words, a "death > spiral" > QED. > > To paraphrase Captain > Scott, I don't think I need > say more, > Best wishes > Peter Wadhams > > > > -- > You received this message > because you are subscribed > to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this > group and stop receiving > emails from it, send an > email to > [email protected]. > To post to this group, send > email to > [email protected]. > Visit this group at > https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > > > > > -- Alan Gadian, Senior Scientist, NCAS, Leeds University, LS2 9JT , UK Email: [email protected] or [email protected] Tel: (+44)/(0) 113 343 7246 Mobile: (+44)/(0) 775 451 9009 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683. Tha Oilthigh Obar Dheathain na charthannas clàraichte ann an Alba, Àir. SC013683. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
