Comment On The Post On Die Klimazwiebel “Roger Pielke Sr. Claims To Have Found Errors In WGI-Report Of IPCC AR4″

There is a Comment on today’s post by Hans von Storch Post On Die Klimazwiebel “Roger Pielke Sr. Claims To Have Found Errors In WGI-Report Of IPCC AR4″

Anonymous said…

The “Annoymous” commenter (who is not candid enough to even sign their name) incorrectly spins the three issues. First, the 2007 IPCC SPM [Statement for Policymakers] does not in fact discuss the limitiations that were presented in the 2005 NRC report. This is an obvious error in the presentation of a summary assessment of climate science by the IPCC SPM.

On the second issue, the caption clearly writes “Global average radiative forcing (RF) estimates and ranges in 2005”. The SPM failed to present what were the best estimates of the 2005 radiative forcings. To not accept the caption as an error is absurd.

On the third item, the issues raised in our 2007 paper were known to the authors of the CCSP 1.1 report, and thus to the IPCC community. They chose to ignore them when they excluded these issues from the 2006 CCSP report. My Public Comment was available in plenty of time before the deadline.

None of these are errors of any sort.

Topic 1: Fig 2.1 describes nicely how radiative forcing is part of the effects on climate and the introduction to that chapter goes through some of the limitations. Simply because the RF concept is not perfect does not been it is not useful.

Topic 2. This is a simply misunderstanding on Dr. Pielke’s side. RF is clearly defined as with respect to 1750 conditions and is not the current radiative imbalance. This misunderstanding has been pointed to Dr. Pielke many times.

Topic 3: These are statements with respect to the temperature records such as they are. This is regardless of what caused the warming whether it is land-use or GHGs. It is impossible for the IPCC report to have assessed Pielke et al 2007. There is instead plenty of discussion of issues in the surface temperature record.

There is enough misinformation out there about the IPCC report as it is, adding spurious talk of non-existent errors is irresponsible.

My response which I have sent to Hans is

The “Anonymous” commenter (who is not candid enough to even sign their name) incorrectly spins the three issues. First, the 2007 IPCC SPM [Statement for Policymakers] does not in fact discuss the limitations that were presented in the 2005 NRC report. This is an obvious error in the presentation of a summary assessment of climate science by the IPCC SPM.

On the second issue, the caption clearly writes “Global average radiative forcing (RF) estimates and ranges in 2005”. The SPM failed to present what were the best estimates of the 2005 radiative forcings. To not accept the caption as an error is absurd.

On the third item, the issues raised in our 2007 paper were known to the authors of the CCSP 1.1 report, and thus to the IPCC community. They chose to ignore them when they excluded these issues from the 2006 CCSP report. My Public Comment was available in plenty of time before the deadline.

Comments Off on Comment On The Post On Die Klimazwiebel “Roger Pielke Sr. Claims To Have Found Errors In WGI-Report Of IPCC AR4″

Filed under Climate Science Misconceptions, Climate Science Reporting

Comments are closed.