The Beast from the East is slain

First again. Better say something clever! The beast from the east may not have made a full entry onto stage but someone or something has sucked all the warmth out of my socks.

3/10 must try harder

As per last topic (BftE) it is typical December weather . . . will probably stay mobile until later in Jan. Just what the ground needs just now - more rain !

The forecast models do tend to over-state easterly PC in the winter. They also generally under-state the potential for cold air to remain stubbornly in situ once it is well established.

I'll agree with #1 at 30% - but no reason to pull funding.

2. chris wrote:

"As per last topic (BftE) it is typical December weather "

Good call chris and IIRC Boanta!

I don't do forecasts, weather or climate. don't have the ability, just track actual observational data. Trust not too much rain and a little warmth will be appreciated.

uh where's that big purple swirly thing heading?

I have just come back from a walk on the Chesterfield canal at Anston. The canal was just starting to freeze over, it would have been nice for a months cold like this, so that we can ice skate on the canal like our dutch friends.

Paul's explanation of the slain beast . . ."This positional error means that Atlantic weather systems will now be able to make further progress eastwards across the UK".

There is a 'chicken and egg' issue here.

The error on the models was the position of the jet. If it is firing northwards towards - say between greenland and iceland - or south east towards western med then that will ALLOW high pressure to build closer to the UK and intensify at this time of the year as cold dense air becomes established.

However, examining GFS the forecast jet is out of north america, roughly at the same latitude as newfoundland and it is forecast to extend to the western approaches of the uk. This dynamic simply blows the high away - or further into russia etc. That configuration will NOT PERMIT the high to exist close enough to the UK. It is therefore very necessary to see what the pattern of the upper air is up wind. Our weather prevails from the west so that is normal. If the upper troughs/ridges align to divert the jet then the westerly can be 'turned off' allowing the european cold to determine our weather.

Interestingly, the latest gfs indicates a low pressure in the southwest approaches around 21 Dec with the upper air pattern more meridional and consequently the forecast shows this low breaking away into france and the med allowing the high over russia to ridge quickly into the UK. (I mentioned this might happen in the last topic). But although the 850Mb (HPA) or approx 4500ft temperature is shown well below -5C by 22 Dec the model also suggests a new westerly jet emerging from newfoundland at that time - so in that case the forecast incursion from the east would be 2-3 days before collapsing ahead of the next westerly blow.

Of course, the gfs to which I refer could be an outlier (8 days out is getting low confidence) and the succession of depressions may continue . . .

It all depends on that westerly upper air pattern. All eventualities still possible but the milder atlantic type is most probable.

Far, far, away things are getting interesting in ENSO 3.4 area.

OLR has been increasing:

https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mjo/graphics/region.ts.dateline.gif

SOI is falling:-

https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/soi30.png

Whilst both the above point in the direction of a potential La Nina, the trade winds, especially in the Eastern Pacific appear to be slowing and in some areas have turned, which could indicate the opposite.

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/cgi-tao/cover.cgi?P1=/tao/jsdisplay/plots/gif/sst_wind_anom_5day_ps32.gif&P2=900&P3=456&script=jsdisplay/scripts/biggif_startup.csh

Either the warm pool is being recharged or it is about to come out to play? Time will tell, next few weeks will be interesting, still awaiting Dec updates of the ENSO model predictions

"Whilst both the above point in the direction of a potential La Nina,"

Is a load of cobblers, cut and paste from wrong post, one points El Nino and one points La Nina.

could you please give that quality of computer model to my local bookie?

Could have told you that last Sunday it was the Beast from The West that was blowing a gale shown in the Video here >>https://telly.com/768XC

Lead story from the Second Order Draft: strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/

For your entertainment.

@ukpahonta

Well this is going to be interesting................ I've brought popcorn................

Still downloading it all, it's painfully slow, I wonder how many others are doing the same?

oopsies...... we seem to have killed the server..............

Well the evil secret team (UN plot to take over the world) allows anybody to sign up to be a reviewer. You then get to see the drafts.

Leaking it sort of ruins the reviewing process really. Then again if they had restricted the reviewing process they would of been accused of a cover up, etc.

Another side show hailed as THE game breaker? (how many of those now? losing count!).

Finally, got them all, time to sit and digest now that I'm awake again.

BTW There are now multiple download sources available at WUWT now.

#15. - blunderbunny wrote:
"Finally, got them all, time to sit and digest now that I'm awake again.

BTW There are now multiple download sources available at WUWT now."

I tried the alternative links but I get the option to download "setup.exe".

Is that safe?

"It illustrates very well just how difficult it is sometimes to forecast general weather conditions a week ahead, even when there's high model confidence."

So despite "high model confidence", the models were wrong.
Despite 80% of the models "wanting an easterly blocking weather pattern", the other 20% were correct.

If models cannot reliably forecast one week ahead, how can they forecast 100 years ahead?

In practice the MO cannot reliably forecast 24 hours ahead. In my location, they forecasted a cloudy sky overnight December 12/13 and it was clear, while they forecasted clear sky last night and it was mostly cloudy.

But we don't know how accurate MO 5 day forecasts are, because they don't monitor them and publish accuracy statistics.

@QV

Not sure mate, I left my downloads chugging away (very slowly) on the original site with automatic restarts and continues and I went to sleep, face down in a soggy bowl of popcorn ;-)

Personally, I wouldn't ever download a .exe unless I trusted the source. So, I'd say probably no. Unfortunately, I can't try and download them here in work to check it out for you, as they get a tad funny about that sort of thing here, but I can put my copies somewhere publically accessable when I get home from work.

#18. - blunderbunny wrote:
"Personally, I wouldn't ever download a .exe unless I trusted the source."

Thanks.

Same here, it may be safe, but I am suspicious of .exe files.
It has the "TRUSTe" logo, but I am not familiar with that.
I just don't know why it should be necessary to use "Optimum Installer", to download the data.
I think I'll play safe.

@QV

No worries mate, I'll see what I can do to help when I get home.......

@17 QV . . . "If models cannot reliably forecast one week ahead, how can they forecast 100 years ahead?

In practice the MO cannot reliably forecast 24 hours ahead. In my location, they forecasted a cloudy sky overnight December 12/13 and it was clear, while they forecasted clear sky last night and it was mostly cloudy.

But we don't know how accurate MO 5 day forecasts are, because they don't monitor them and publish accuracy statistics".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A number of questions/issues here - I'll not comment on the 'one week v hundred years' as these are quite different matters - the accuracy (or lack) of one is not readily - if at all - correlated to the other.

The clear sky / cloudy sky matter is one of detail - whilst that may be important to you at a particular location any forecast through the media is general and apart from ppn intensity or type over mountains/high ground other such detail is implied rather than specified. I realise this doesn't score any points if you go out to observe an astronomical event and it turns out cloudy! If a more specified forecast is required then contact the MO directly - there may be a charge of course!

Having said that, the cloud you commented on is interesting, consider your location and the topography of your local area. You might be on a hillside and the night in question may have been clear but fog in a nearby valley may have formed and later as wind increased slightly this may have become low cloud at your location. In the general synoptic scheme the forecast may have been correct in that no frontal cloud was anticipated but your celestial view was obscured and your opinion was a poor forecast!

If the aim of the 5, 10, 15 day forecasts is to indicate a general trend - warm/cold; wet/dry; wind direction then (imho) the 5 day is certainly 85%+ most of the time, the 10 day around 70% with the 15 day significantly better than 50/50.

However, in terms of performance indicators how are these to be arrived at. Again as an example (for bookies), a location could have a fall of snow on 22 December and remain cold but dry through until after boxing day and have >95% snow cover throughout the period. However, it will not count as a white christmas. On another year the same location could be generally mild but late on christmas eve a cold front introduces 12 hours of air cold enough to produce wintry showers. A flake of snow is observed on christmas day and doesn't settle but that is classed as a white christmas!

It is difficult enough to establish meaningful performance indicators on a production line so with the atmosphere it is infinitely more so.

At the end of the day, whatever the synoptic forecasts do or do not achieve one thing is absolute: They do not change the weather. It is this fact that makes meteorology addictively fascinating.

I just wish met office and other weather forecasters in the media did not trivialise their predictions by saying silly things like "it is going to be a bar b q summer" or "the beast of the east". I am sure these comments are a result of the ego of presenters and organisations to appear 'in touch' with the public at large. They almost always come back and bite the arse of the originator(s).

QV, can I beg a favour if you have a few minutes to spare?

For various reasons I have been looking back at HadCRUT3. Warmest year given as 1998 at +0.517C, rounded to +0.52C and is shown to be so in the annual dataset:-

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

However when I check the monthly dataset from the same location I get +0.548C (simple average) and +0.546C (No days/month average)?

Checked HadCrut4 and both annual and monthly show +0.523C.

Would appreciate if you could have a look and tell me what I am doing wrong?

TIA

#21. - chris wrote:
"If a more specified forecast is required then contact the MO directly - there may be a charge of course! "

I disagree. The MO *claim* to be able to forecast for a specific location, to within 3 hourly time slots. If they can't do that, then they should stop pretending they can.

"If the aim of the 5, 10, 15 day forecasts is to indicate a general trend - warm/cold; wet/dry; wind direction then (imho) the 5 day is certainly 85%+ most of the time, the 10 day around 70% with the 15 day significantly better than 50/50."
The aim of the 5 day forecast is to provide specific forecasts for a specific location in 3 hourly time slots. I agree they are generally correct but that isn't good enough.
Do you have *any* data to back up your claim that they are 85%+ "most of the time". In any case that is slightly contradictory. If by "most of the time", you mean 51%, then in reality that means about 43% accuracy.

"It is difficult enough to establish meaningful performance indicators on a production line so with the atmosphere it is infinitely more so. "

Again, I disagree, it's quite simple. If a forecast predicts clear sky at 21:00 and it's cloudy then that is a fail. Of course there are degrees of cloudyness and there are rarely totally cloudless skies, but the MO don't specify percentage cover, only totally clear, partly cloudy and totally cloudy.

The problem is that the MO don't and actually can't know how accurate forecasts are for individual locations because they don't monitor them.

#22. - greensand wrote:
"Would appreciate if you could have a look and tell me what I am doing wrong?"

I think that there are discrepancies between monthly and annual figures and I may even have queried this with the MO.

Another huge discrepancy is the fact that the 1961-90 average isn't zero. I think I have posted in the past that the difference is about 0.026c pa which accounts for a large part of the difference between HC3 and HC4.

Anyway I will double check the 1998 figure and see if I can find any correspondence and get back to you.

24. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

"Anyway I will double check the 1998 figure and see if I can find any correspondence and get back to you."

Thanks QV, appreciated.

greensand,

I have just remembered that the MO have a different method of calculating the annual figure to the CRU. The latter use a simple average of monthly figures and their figure is currently 0.548c.

However, the MO method is more complicated and not easily replicated. In practice, sometimes the figures are similar and sometimes different. If I remember correctly 1998 has one of the largest differences. There is an explanation of sorts in the MO FAQ, here:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/indicators/index.html

"Q. Why aren't your estimates of the global annual average exactly the same as those that CRU publish?
A. We use the same gridded data but the way that CRU calculate the global annual average and the way that we do it are different. We average in time (monthly maps to annual maps) then in space (area average annual map to get a single number). CRU average in space (monthly map to single monthly average number) then in time (12 single monthly global averages average to get one single global annual average number). "

I am not sure if the same method used for the calculation of HadCUT4.

@26. QuaesoVeritas wrote:

Thanks QV, will follow the link and have a read.

Just seemed a bit odd, I can recall discussions re the difference CRU to HC3 but had not picked up such a magnitude before.

I was trying to check how the MO Annual Decadal Forecasts were doing and as they were verified (hindcast) and forecast against HC3 I was checking my HC3 data. Got thrown when the rolling months did not seem to correspond with the annual. Hey ho, thanks for the insight.

@QV

The files are available from this link (not mine), but the dowload seems to work for me:

https://www.filedropper.com/wwwstopgreensuicidecom

It's saved as a single .rar file, just click on th download file icon a grey/blue box halfway down the linked page above, type in the captcha and away you go.

Hope that helps...........

"I just don't know why it should be necessary to use "Optimum Installer", to download the data."

More than likely there was a sneaky ad on the AR5 link page. A lot of download link pages contain ads. Some of the more nefarious ads use a big image with the word "DOWNLOAD" on them. Designed so that people mistake the ads for the actual download link they are after and end up installing whatever adware/spyware or something more malicious that the ad points to.

As 'game changers' go, it yet again fails.

But it won't stop certain blogs and columnists flogging it for all it's worth.

Then we will have the proper release of AR5, which will undoubtedly be followed by a rush to find any changes (it's a draft so there will be quite a few). The same people who say the IPCC reports are fiction are now saying 'look look' look at what the IPCC admits!

#28. - blunderbunny wrote:
"The files are available from this link (not mine), but the dowload seems to work for me:"

Thanks for your trouble,

I am not sure if I can handle .rar files but I will give it a go.

#29. - quake wrote:
"More than likely there was a sneaky ad on the AR5 link page."

Thanks, I think I will keep clear of it, just in case.

UAH and RSS are out for Nov. Both are down reflecting the fizzling out of the mild El Nino in the summer.

Only GISS is up.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/nov-updatesrss-giss-uah/

@33 PaulHomewood

3rd highest UAH November is some fizzle...

@PaulHolmwood

"Only GISS is up."

When is GISS not up? - being run by the warmest warmist out there its hardly surprising though

#33. - PaulHomewood wrote:
"Only GISS is up."
Actually isn't GISS down from the original 0.69c for October published last month, to 0.68c for November?
Although according to the latest data file, the October and November figures are both 0.68c.

33. PaulHomewood wrote:

"UAH and RSS are out for Nov. Both are down reflecting the fizzling out of the mild El Nino in the summer. Only GISS is up."

I'm afraid that's wrong on several counts.

Firstly, there was *no* El Nino this summer, mild or otherwise. That's the second consecutive month on which you've made that error. All there was were above average SSTs in ENSO 3.4; officially "ENSO Neutral". That remains the official status of ENSO according to all the official data compilers that I know of.

Secondly NASA is *not* up in November. It's exactly the same as it was in October. (In fact, as QV points out above, it is slightly down on the originally reported October figure.)

Thirdly, as John_cogger points out, while UAH is "down" relative to October, it is *up* on the previous two Novembers and is in fact the third warmest November in the UAH record. Don't forget that each month's value is predicated upon past temperatures recorded for that specific month, not the month before.

#11. ukpahonta wrote:

"Lead story from the Second Order Draft: strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC"

Afraid not, just another denier cherry pick, and a pretty unethical denier at that since as a reviewer he agreed not to release drafts;

https://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/13/major-ipcc-report-draft-leaked-then-cherry-picked-climate-sceptics

https://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1776

But if that is the sort of person you want to believe, that is up to you.

This is interesting:
https://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/

#38 Lazarus

Got your work cut out for you, got a rebut for:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/

And:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/

Or:
https://climatedepot.com/a/18800/Prof-Pielke-Jr-Analysis-of-UN-IPCC-Draft-report--IPCC-shows-almost-complete-reversal-from-AR4-on-trends-in-drought-hurricanes-floods

Better get your comrades at the disinformation bureau to work weekends!

@40 Ukpahonta

But those bombshells are not THE bombshell that made Mr Rawls release the AR5. His bombshell has been shown to be not even a party popper.

Yet again the AR documents are being held up as false, conspiracy filled guff at the same time as containing scientific bombshells that reveal that global warming is false.

Forgive for not always beleiving the head line conclusions on WUWT... I mean they are the mob that said Piers talked rubbish... :-)

Well amongst many other possibilities, there is at least one good thing to come out of this “leak”.

Human nature will ensure that it is read and studied by far more people just because it is a “leak”. Also it will get a double “exposure” as more will then go on to read and study the final report if only to seek out changes from the “leaked” doc.

Bringing more attention to what is one of the “greatest threats” that mankind has ever faced, can only be good, can’t it?

#41 john_cogger

Bombshells.... well hardly but anything to do with the IPCC is now just tittle tattle, a scientific embarrassment, the realisation has dawned and the process is failing, each new revelation diminishes the presumed authority in both the eyes of not only the public and policy makers, but also scientists.
https://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/

Those who have promoted a requirement to pay for our sins against nature are facing a conflict on two fronts. The politicians are utilising the green argument to their own advantage without recourse to societal changing reform and the science is moving on to discover the natural cycles of nature undermining the basis of blaming mankind for climate change and requiring atonement.

Are you not entertained?

42. greensand wrote:

Well amongst many other possibilities, there is at least one good thing to come out of this “leak”.

Human nature will ensure that it is read and studied by far more people just because it is a “leak”.
_________________________

Agreed.

The IPCC is living in a bubble. The whole process should be open to all and sundry. It actually is at the minute; however you have to go through a process of registration, accepting terms of non-disclosure (huh!) and basically self proclaiming yourself to be a worthy person to have sight of the draft report.

Basically, any old fool with time on their hands can register as an IPCC "expert reviewer". It's a tried and tested 'sceptic' approach. Often you will see sources quoted in 'sceptic' blogs claiming that so-and-so is an "IPCC expert reviewer". When you follow it up, you discover that it's just some silly old fool with time on his hands who thinks he knows better than scientists currently publishing in the field.

I'd say Rawls is a prime case in point. I can think immediately of several others, some of whom are prominent members of 'sceptic' organisations globally.

44. newdwr54 wrote:

"Agreed"

Good, however I at a loss to comprehend what the rest of your comment has to do with it being better that more people will study the report. Are you saying it is wrong if they do? Do you actually think that it should not be open to "all and sundry", is it not relevant to their lives?

As per usual my comment is about one thing "the report", and your reply is about something entirely different "the man" in this case Rawls.

It would appear that you are more concerned about the man than you are with the report.

The IPCC process is a bit of a mess and not sure anyone disagree. Ideally the scientists would just get on with writting it and then publish. But who decides which scientists etc? They could go fully open, but then we would get a constant stream of 'bombshells' and arguements over everything. Plus blogs/newspapers could produce stories on things dismissed by the time the final release is made.

Then again the half open method they use now isn't working, they get accused of hiding things at the same time as allowing anyone to take part.

45. greensand wrote:

"Do you actually think that it should not be open to "all and sundry", is it not relevant to their lives?"

I stated clearly in the second sentence @ 44. "The whole process SHOULD be open to all and sundry." (My emphasis this time, for greater clarity.)

If the draft report was made publicly available then it is my belief that silly mistakes like the Himalayan Glacier melt saga would not see the light of day (although it should be pointed out that that particular error was not made by the scientific WGI report in 2007).

I'm not attacking Rawls per say. I'm criticising the structure of a major international body because it allows unqualified people, like you or I or Rawls (who appears to have a background in economics) to call themselves "expert reviewers" of complex scientific papers just because they fill in a few forms.

If the draft paper was published publicly for broad comment, as seems to be the trend these days (both Hansen and Watts have taken this route within the past 18 months), then it would open the debate up to a much wider and possibly less ideologically motivated pool of reviewers.

46. john_cogger wrote:

"The IPCC process is a bit of a mess and not sure anyone disagree."

I can't disagree, no process can be anywhere near acceptable to all but this is just too all encompassing.

My two cents, not all in one, but spread over the 5 years one report a year, first year observational data, how we compile, how to improve, instil competition.

Next year how does what we have learned from the previous fit with the model predictions, next year implications etc..

Not going any further but maybe you get my drift?

47. newdwr54 wrote:

"I'm not attacking Rawls per say."

Yes you are, it is your MO, just like Scholes with a poorly timed tackle!

If you weren't then there would be no need for - "or Rawls (who appears to have a background in economics) to call themselves "expert reviewers" of complex scientific papers just because they fill in a few forms."

However your last paragraph I do agree with wholeheartedly, pity it was not your first paragraph, but that would spoil the advocates fun wouldn't it DW?:-

"If the draft paper was published publicly for broad comment, as seems to be the trend these days (both Hansen and Watts have taken this route within the past 18 months), then it would open the debate up to a much wider and possibly less ideologically motivated pool of reviewers."

49. greensand:

This is odd. You say that it's a pity that my last paragraph in 47, which advocates open publication of IPCC report, was not my first in 44.

Yet as I pointed out at 47, in my first paragraph in 44 I specifically and clearly stated exactly that. I'll copy and paste it again, sorry for the repetition:

"The IPCC is living in a bubble. The whole process should be open to all and sundry."

I said in the first paragraph of 44 that the IPCC should be an open process, available to all and I repeated that in the last paragraph of 47.

I'm at a loss to see where the contradiction is?

the 1703 storm was mentioned in previous threads. There's an interesting story related to that here:
https://www.damninteresting.com/night-takes-rook/

maybe there should be a climate wiki format site instead of the periodic IPCC reports which scientists can edit and everyone else can read. That way new research or information about topics like sea level rise, temperature changes etc could be updated quite quickly.

If distinct reports are still needed perhaps it is sufficient to just take a snapshot of the wiki at fixed dates (eg every 12 months).

The internet is alive with comment, some that require repeating:

'The SPM and the WG1 science are two different things. I believe that the body of WG1 was a fair effort at trying to get the science together to give the policy makers something to base policy on. This appears to have changed after the TAR, when the reasonable, moderate and modest tones that we expect from scientists changed dramatically.The climategate emails gave us a glimpse at the behind the scenes activities to keep out papers that didn't support the required answer. If that failed these gangsters ( I don't use that word lightly, they're gangsters, maybe small time, stupid, gangsters working , probably unwittingly, because they are enjoying their fifteen minutes of fame for the odious people who run the NGOs, but gangsters nontheless) either dismissed the relevant papers or simply ignored them in the SPM.

The SPM is a political document, it has only one intention, and that is nothing to do with science. It is intended to frighten the bejasus out of the people so that the "green solutions" and concomitant financial pains associated with them, are accepted by the people as necessary.

I hear from some very genuine climate scientists that what they want to get from their communications strategies is respect for scientists. From my perspective there is already widespread respect for scientists, far too much if you ask me. Enough for the establishment to arrange 3 separate investigations of the climategate emails so that the "scientists" were exonerated and, we are led to believe, despite the clear evidence of wrongdoing, blameless.

I note that two of the reviewers have leaked the documents related to what is in WG1, presumably because they can see important papers challenging the "science of global warming" are going to be ignored and have tried to make this public.

Won't work I'm afraid, there is blanket censorship in the MSM of anyone expressing views contrary to the, what I now believe, ludicrous suggestion that variations in CO2 in the atmosphere can cause temperatures to rise by up to 6C.'
Dec 15, 2012 at 5:23 PM | geronimo
https://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/12/15/the-calm-after-the-storm.html

50. newdwr54 wrote:

"This is odd. You say that it's a pity that my last paragraph in 47, which advocates open publication of IPCC report, was not my first in 44."

It will be, because I did not say it should be your "first in 44."? Yet again the DW MO!

But now you mention your 44 lets have a look:-

"The IPCC is living in a bubble. The whole process should be open to all and sundry. It actually is at the minute; however you have to go through a process of registration, accepting terms of non-disclosure (huh!) and basically self proclaiming yourself to be a worthy person to have sight of the draft report.

Basically, any old fool with time on their hands can register as an IPCC "expert reviewer". It's a tried and tested 'sceptic' approach. Often you will see sources quoted in 'sceptic' blogs claiming that so-and-so is an "IPCC expert reviewer". When you follow it up, you discover that it's just some silly old fool with time on his hands who thinks he knows better than scientists currently publishing in the field."

"Basically, any old fool with time on their hands can register as an IPCC "expert reviewer". It's a tried and tested 'sceptic' approach."

Is it? Why is it "a tried and tested 'sceptic' approach"?

"Often you will see sources quoted in 'sceptic' blogs claiming that so-and-so is an "IPCC expert reviewer". When you follow it up, you discover that it's just some silly old fool with time on his hands who thinks he knows better than scientists currently publishing in the field."

"who thinks he knows better than scientists currently publishing in the field."

And who are you to say he doesn't? Is that not the "privilege" of the scientist to say say or nay?

Yeh dude you really do come over as somebody who really deep down believes the process should be fully transparent!

Simple question DW, yes or no, is it better that more people study the report and the process? Lets see if you can do it without reference to:-

"tried and tested 'sceptic' approach"

"quoted in 'sceptic' blogs claiming that so-and-so is an "IPCC expert reviewer"

"It's just some silly old fool with time on his hands who thinks he knows better than scientists currently publishing in the field."

Or are you of the opinion that "the plebs" should only be shown the sanitised version?

@47, newdwr54 wrote:

“ If the draft report was made publicly available then it is my belief that silly mistakes like the Himalayan Glacier melt saga would not see the light of day … “

That 'silly mistake' was pointed out by several reviewers but was deliberately left in because the lead authors couldn't find anything else with a strong enough message.

When the report was published people who then drew attention to the obvious error were accused of practising 'voodoo science'.

There are many more such errors but because they are not quite so obvious critics are ignored because they are not 'climate scientists'.

No knowledge of climate science is required to tell if someone has got their sums wrong.

#39 buythermals

Apologies, i should have referenced your link on my #43. I think we will find many more interesting articles prior to AR5 being published.

Bid to heap blame on sunspots for climate change has backfired

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/bid-to-heap-blame-on-sunspots-for-climate-change-has-backfired-8418195.html

An attempt by climate sceptics to hijack the latest UN report on global warming by selectively leaking claims that it is caused by sunspots rather than man-made emissions of carbon dioxide has backfired.

Sceptics described the forthcoming report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a “game changer” because of its apparent support for the controversial theory that solar activity, interacting with cosmic rays from deep space, can explain global warming.

Alec Rawls, a Republican blogger in the United States who signed himself up as an expert IPCC reviewer, decided to leak the panel’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) on the grounds that it is a taxpayer-funded document.

Mr Rawls claimed the report suggests that the IPCC has finally come round to the idea that solar activity – sunspots – is partly responsible for the observed global temperatures rise seen over the past half century.

“The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcings changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum,” Mr Rawls said.

“The final draft of [the IPCC report] is not scheduled to be released for another year, but the public needs to know now how the main premise and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself,” he said.

However, climate scientists pointed out that Mr Rawls has selectively quoted from the draft report and has ignored other parts of the document stating that solar activity and cosmic rays cannot explain the increase in global temperatures seen over the past half century, as sceptics have repeatedly claimed.

@57 Quake

As I said earlier, they have moved on already. The next bombshell awaits. :-)

#39.- buythermals wrote:
"This is interesting:"

Thanks for posting that.
Of course, what Ban Ki-moon says is total nonsense, but he has been indoctrinated, like a lot of other politicians, to believe what he says is true.
Ban Ki-moon is a career diplomat with absolutely no qualifications in the field he is expressing opinions about. On the other hand, we have 125 qualified scientists who contradict him, but I doubt if it will make any difference to what he says.

The bombshell, the sequel:
https://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/alec-rawls-responds-to-steven-sherwood-the-bad-professor-is-inverting-the-scientific-method/

Quake, from your link . . .
"Professor Bill McGuire of University College London said that the IPCC report reiterates the widely accepted view among scientists that climate change is not a natural process but the consequence of human activities. Alec Rawls’ interpretation of what IPCC5 says is quite simply wrong. In fact, while temperatures have been ramping up in recent decades, solar activity has been pretty subdued,” Professor McGuire said.

This is spin. Disingenuous bordering on fabrication. McGuire says solar activity has been subdued over recent decades - that's just sophistry. Whether solar activity has anything to do with the warming over the 20thC is irrelevant, just look at the charts. Not asking anyone to change their mind about AGW, simply look at the evidence that the statement was spin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
At the peak of the last cycle, (though lower than the 1950s peak) activity was still considerably higher than the late 19thC/early20thC.

McGuire also states that temps have been ramping up in recent decades - again a very dubious claim. Where is the 'ramping up' over the last fifteen years? You know, the same period when Solar Activity actually did fall below the 20thC average.

mmmm?

61. lateintheday wrote:

"McGuire also states that temps have been ramping up in recent decades - again a very dubious claim. Where is the 'ramping up' over the last fifteen years? You know, the same period when Solar Activity actually did fall below the 20thC average."
_____________________________

Fifteen years is just over one decade; not a "few decades". It's far too short a period over which to infer trends from surface and lower troposphere temperature data. Even so, here is HadCRUT4 data versus sunspot numbers over the past 15 years:

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.83/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.83/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1997.83/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1997.83/trend/normalise

You can see that temperatures have remained steady (in fact the HC4 trend is slightly positive), whilst sunspot numbers are in decline. If Svensmark's GCR theory is correct, then global temperatures should have fallen. Over thirty years the difference becomes even more pronounced:

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982.83/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982.83/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1982.83/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1982.83/trend/normalise

The evidence from sunspot numbers and temperatures contradicts Svensmark's theory (that reduced sunspots leads to increased cloud cover and thus lower temperatures due to increased GCRs). The opposite is observed to be true.

newdwr54 - I didn't mention Svensmark did I?
Thanks for confirming that temps have remained fairly flat and have not been 'ramping up' over the last 15 years as McGuire erroneously implied.

As for sunspot numbers over this period, you seem to have missed the point. Let me help you with our now 'standard' footballing analogy.

At the start of the season (1900) team solar generally starts winning matches by the odd goal. A quarter way into the season, they are winning matches by 2 or 3 goals and by mid season they are winning matches by 5 goals. For most of the last half of the season they regularly win matches by 3 or 4 goals and have reached the top of the league - hurrah!
Problem is, the manager gets sacked because apparently, their performance has dropped. The manager pleads that although winning by 3 or 4 goals is not as good as winning by 5, it's still a great improvement on the start of the season results.
Needless to say, their final few games (2005 - 2010) are still won, but only by the odd goal. Unsurprisingly, they're still at the top of the league.

The thing is - it doesn't matter a jot to my comment @61 whether Solar is in some way 'amplified' or AGW is real. The point was - McGuire was being very economical with the truth. Why you can't just say "yes" to that is beyond me. It is blindingly obvious that his comments were intentionally misleading. And "yes", I know skeptics are guilty of this too.

And just to be clear . . . I understood that much of the early 20thC warming was attributed to an increase in solar activity rather than CO2. The last solar peak at the end of the 20thC, though lower than the 1950s peak, was actually higher than the first three (possibly four) of the early 20thC peaks.

And just to really push home the message . . . we haven't yet had a full solar cycle from min-max-min since the sun went quiet. Remember, up until around 2005 things were perfectly 'normal' and Hathaway was still predicting another grand ssn. Moreover, while this cycle looks like being very low, we're still on the up towards (or at) solar max - we haven't even seen the downslope yet.
Let's see where we are by 2018 once we've had one low cycle. That's assuming this cycle stays low and doesn't drag on too long.

63. lateintheday wrote:

"Thanks for confirming that temps have remained fairly flat and have not been 'ramping up' over the last 15 years as McGuire erroneously implied."

To quote McGuire exactly (with my emphasis) from your own post #61 "... while temperatures have been ramping up in *recent decades*, solar activity has been pretty subdued". "Recent decades" is probably a reference to the WMO's recommended classic period of 30 years; it certainly does not imply a period as relatively short as 15 years. Therefore McGuire is absolutely right to say that in "recent decades" (not 15 years) while sunspot numbers have fallen, global temperatures have risen. This is evidence against the GCR theory of climate change.

Re the solar activity from the start of the 20th century: as you point out, the IPCC has previously accepted (AR4) that most of the warming seen in the first half of the 20th century was probably due to natural variation, including exceptionally high solar activity. There's no real argument there.

What they don't accept is that solar activity (whether by direct insolation or via GCR influence) explains the temperatures observed in "recent decades". When you look at the evidence over that period, it's not hard to see why.

From your Wiki graph, the black line gives the 11 year solar magnetic cycle. You can see that since the 1950s it has been mostly downward (fewer sunspots), and it has been continuously downward since the early 1980s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The early 20th century warming associated with previous sunspot increases was very responsive, i.e. as sunspot numbers increased temperatures rose with a very short lag. So you would expect the same to occur in reverse. After a few years (allowing for ocean lag, etc) you would expect to see temperatures cool once sunspot numbers reduce *if* sunspots are really driving the climate.

We don't see that. Instead, when measured across reasonable time-scales, we see continued temperature rise: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982.83/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982.83/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1982.83/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1982.83/trend/normalise

We keep hearing these dire warnings of imminent global temperature collapse. We've heard them from Don Easterbrook since the late 1990s; from Piers Corbyn and David Archibald in 2008; from Joe Bastardi and co every year almost without fail.... yet the long term warming trend continues (currently ~0.16C/decade).

When do *you* anticipate that the latent effect of reduced sunspot numbers will be reflected in global surface temperatures?

What I see newdwr54 is that there were 10 solar peaks in the 20thC and six of the last seven were higher than the first three. According to you (and climate science consensus) those first three were strong enough to cause warming and yet for some inexplicable reason, the later six cycles (which were clearly higher peaks) cannot cause warming. That's ridiculous.

As for the one lower cycle of those latter seven - that would be around the time when temps flattened would it not? Around the time we were told the next ice age was on the way. And this current flat 15 year trend seems to have coincided with half a low solar cycle also.

Your point that cycles since the 80's have been trending down is simply irrelevant. Those cycles show higher peaks than those which have already been acknowledged to cause warming.