Ag Weather Forum
Bryce Anderson DTN Ag Meteorologist and DTN Analyst

Wednesday 03/10/10
Global Warming Research To Be Reviewed

The following wire service account has details of an upcoming review of the controversial IPCC global warming research report.--Bryce

Outside science academies to review warming panel

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The beleaguered global warming panel has found an outside group to review how it writes its reports.

An international group, the InterAcademy Council, will be given complete control to review the rules, procedures and reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said a scientist close to the situation. Recently, several unsettling errors have been found in the climate panel reports issued in 2007.

Though the mistakes don't undercut the broad consensus on global warning, they have shaken the credibility of climate scientists and given skeptics of global warming ammunition.

The InterAcademy Council is a Netherlands-based organization of the science academies of 15 nations.

"They will run the review themselves," said a scientist close to the situation, who asked not to be named because the researcher was not authorized to talk publicly. "It will be independent... They are choosing the reviewers."

The idea is to have the review finished before the annual meeting of the IPCC in October, the source said. The climate panel was formed by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization.

It will be up to the InterAcademy Council to decide if it's acceptable for its reviewers to have taken part in past IPCC reports. A large number of top climate scientists have participated in the IPCC. The council will also look at whether the reports should include non-peer-reviewed "gray literature" often written by governments or advocacy groups, the source said.

The reviewers will also look at whether to put in procedures that could catch and correct errors better, the source said.

Details of the review will be announced Wednesday at the United Nations, after the IPCC chairman meets with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. The IPCC had been looking for an outside group to do the review.

The UN secretary general himself is requesting the review as well as the IPCC, another source close to the situation said.

"It's to be welcomed," said IPCC co-author and Princeton University professor Michael Oppenheimer. "It's a step in the direction of re-establishing the IPCC's credibility with the general public. I, as an IPCC scientist, welcome this kind of check on things."

The IPCC, which is mostly a collection of scientists volunteering their work, produced reports that had errors that ranged from mistaking how much of the Netherlands is below sea level to botching how fast glaciers in the Himalayans are expected to melt.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., last month called problems with the IPCC "the makings of a major scientific scandal."

Stanford scientist Stephen Schneider, another IPCC co-author, called independent review a great idea.

"Everybody knows there's a tiny error rate," Schneider said. "Any error rate that can be fixed should be fixed."

The IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with former Vice President Al Gore.

On the Net

The IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/…

The InterAcademy Council: http://www.interacademycouncil.net
Posted at 1:45PM CST 03/10/10 by Bryce Anderson
Comments (19)
Bryce: I hope they have plenty of disinfectant at the session. They will need it!
Posted by tom vogel at 2:30PM CST 03/10/10
I am amazed at how angry the conservative sector of our society gets when the truth is twisted by global warming scientists but how the same group totally ignored the lies of the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which led to a $800 billion dollar war debt with much death and pain. I am glad that a new group will look at the data but I doubt that will change the attitudes of the "climate change deniers" as they don't want to change their lifestyle.
Posted by Jay Mcginnis at 3:28PM CST 03/10/10
The GW topic is volatile but of course also important. I believe that the reaction generated by the postings is a direct testimony to its importance.
Posted by Bryce Anderson at 3:39PM CST 03/10/10
Bryce, You should delete the post by Jay as it is not relevant to the article you posted. Or is this rule only for those who oppose global warming/socialism? There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Did you not see the video of the thousands of dead Kurds that he gassed? The weapons were removed before we got there.
Posted by smitty at 5:37PM CST 03/10/10
jay, i dont think its that people dont want to change their lifestyles to something less energy intensive , it is who is to decide on the path. individuals by their own free will or the feds in dc? or worse yet the un? i believe this arguement has more to do with power and control than saving the planet. individuals with freedom of choice made this country great, not the federal government or the un. i commend you on the steps you have taken personally. you made a choice and voted with your wallet.and i would prefer to see that nationwide as a choice and not an edict. dave wiebke
Posted by Unknown at 6:22PM CST 03/10/10
There is a good rundown of what this audit will cover and what it will not that I will post later today.
Posted by Bryce Anderson at 7:27AM CST 03/11/10
It is very important to have the right figures on global warming and regardless of a few bad people the numbers still point to a major man made problem. This will become more of a problem in the near future due to peak oil. Every figure agrees that oil will peak in the early 21st century, only they don't agree exactly when. As "cheep oil" goes away we will start cracking shale, tar sands, coal and other energy intensive systems that will make even much more CO2 OR we can build a renewable energy infrastructure, its a decision that either way makes no economical sense now. HOWEVER building such a structure will take cheap fossil fuel...We live in a society of a large population of people where what one does it affects others. If I decided that burning old tires would be the most economical way to heat my home I doubt that anyone in the local area would commend me on making the best choice, but my wallet would like it! If I make my energy using renewables my wallet wont like it but my neighbors wont even know it and 50 yrs from now it will be working when all the tires will have been burnt many years ago......
Posted by Jay Mcginnis at 7:44AM CST 03/11/10
Jay, Did Hussein use weapons of mass destruction to kill the Kurds? Unless you think that was staged, stop spreading false information that there were no WMDs in Iraq. I'm happy that Bryce won't delete this since he allowed you to bring up this topic and didn't delete your post.
Posted by smitty at 10:04AM CST 03/11/10
No, Smitty, we've had our deletion go-round in a previous post.
Posted by Bryce Anderson at 10:35AM CST 03/11/10
jay, lets start with a point of agreement. there was an ice age. how did all that ice melt? dave wiebke
Posted by Unknown at 6:15PM CST 03/11/10
Well Dave I agree there has been climate change over the ages but I personally feel that we as human beings have a responsibility to leave the environment in better shape to future generations. I also believe that we have the ability but "financial markets" are not forward looking enough to make theses changes. I guess you could say that climate change is a natural event since human beings are a part of nature. Dominant species go through a "bell curve" where they have plenty of food to eat until their food source dries up and they "peak", followed by a massive die out until the specie becomes more balanced in a sustainable way. We may not be any different only oil is our food source and climate change another form of self destruction. If you look at it that way, yes this climate change is natural,,,, but I don't think you'll like the outcome or purpose. The bell curve of peak oil maybe our species die out bell curve?
Posted by Jay Mcginnis at 8:20PM CST 03/11/10
Jay the above comment is one of the most practical, and senseable idea that has posted on this topic.
Posted by Aaron R. Ritchie at 7:03AM CST 03/12/10
there is no way that climate change could have taken place in the past, there were no humans around to cause it. Thats the problem with the "Climate Change" issue, and a lot of other liberal issues, its their "personnel feelings". Its not based no fact, its guilty conscience for their lifestyle. They want to make everyone miserable. Humans did not start to make progress until the earth started to warm.
Posted by GARY WILLIAMS at 9:31AM CST 03/12/10
Aaron, You need to get get out more...and read more if this is the most practical thing you've ever read about this subject. I've been reading about those issues for years. Peak oil is the biggest problem facing us with the possible exception of terrorism. That is why I support renewable energy even though there is no such thing as man made global warming.
Posted by smitty at 9:36AM CST 03/12/10
Smitty, Practical and senseable refers to Jay's comments on this topic posted on this site. I am not a supporter of Man-made climate change however your are naive if you think that we have not had an impact! I believe that this earth's climate cycles, this cycles are far longer than the time span that man has kept track of weather. I do not agree with much of what Jay writes but, the comment above is 100% correct it is forward thinking and this time Jay is seeing the big picture. I was once told by a very intelligent man "The mind is like a parachute, it only works when its open" Smitty do not go sky diving!
Posted by Aaron R. Ritchie at 2:36PM CST 03/12/10
I agree that jays hypothesis is reasonable but it may take 50 to 200 years to prove true. I also agree that financial markets are short sited. for example, I have a 18 megawatt wind energy project waiting for 24 M dollars to fund the community based project. Seems as tho an 8% annual return isn't good enough for investors.
Posted by Paul Beiser at 5:04PM CST 03/12/10
Paul it could take even longer than 200yrs. I dont see whats wrong w/8% and if the money was maid available they would be in construction.
Posted by Aaron R. Ritchie at 5:13PM CST 03/12/10
Yes the towers, turbines and land are all lined up along with a solid business plan. just can't find the money.
Posted by Paul Beiser at 8:17PM CST 03/12/10
Paul, You have a dog in this race. I am "pro" wind energy, however, it is not my livelihood. You are in the wind energy business. Like Al Gore, (probably Bryce) you profit from this farce called global warming. I am very pro renewable energy but I don't have the need to jam it down throats at any cost up to and including falsifying data.
Posted by smitty at 6:17AM CST 03/13/10
Post a Blog Comment:
Your Comment:
Post Comment
DTN reserves the right to delete comments posted to any of our blogs and forums, for reasons including profanity, libel, irrelevant personal attacks and advertisements.
Blog Home Pages
July2010  
S M T W T F S
            1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Subscribe to Ag Weather Forum RSS
Recent Blog Posts
  • Hottest Decade On Record
  • Russia Drought Gets Center Stage
  • Significant Rain Event
  • Late July Heat Bubble
  • Midwest Rain, Russia Dryness
  • Latest Sea Surface Temperatures
  • Drought Impacts FSU Small Grains
  • A mixed bag of crop reports in the Midwest.
  • China corn and soybean weather
  • Sea surface temperatures continue to fall in the eastern pacific
  • Variable Conditions For Early July
  • A Customer Conversation
  • Why The U.S. Model Keeps "Winning"
  • Post-Webinar And La Nina Thoughts
  • Midsummer Outlook Webinar
  • Eventful Monday
  • Chronicling Heavy Iowa June Rainfall
  • Saturated Soils Leave Crops Vulnerable
  • Promising Midweek Forecast
  • First-Of-Summer La Nina Thoughts