by Judith Curry
Calling on CE Denizens to review the Climate Science Special Report: nominate an official reviewer, or participate in the CE Crowdsourced Review.
Pat Michaels recently posted an article at CE National Climate Assessment and the Tump administration. His post described the process and history of the national assessments, and voices Michaels’ concerns.
The first of these reports has been released in draft form: the US Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) Fifth-Order Draft.
A good summary of what has been going on with this Report and the reactions to it is provided in an article by Andy Revkin.: The entire article is well worth reading, some excerpts are provided below:
Earlier this month, someone involved in the government’s latest report on climate change provided The New York Times with a copy of the version submitted to the Trump administration for final approval. The main intent of the leak, according to several people tracking the report, was to complicate any attempt to suppress the study or water down its findings.
The report was submitted in late June and the Trump administration has broad authority to review its findings. Any one of a number of government agencies can block its release, which is ultimately subject to presidential review.
Some of the scientists involved in preparing the document expressed concern that it might never see the light of day.
They said there are signs that the Trump administration would subject the draft climate report to a “red team” vetting process in which a group of scientists would be invited to vigorously question its premises.
In many ways, the 669-page “Climate Science Special Report” is utterly unremarkable. It is a review of existing science that concludes human activities are largely responsible for the warming of the planet. Worsening climatic and coastal impacts are almost inevitable unless the world’s industrial nations significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
What makes the report significant now is the challenge it poses to a White House that has been moving aggressively to reverse the Obama administration’s policies and rules on climate change.
Trump administration officials declined to comment on the climate science report as long as it is in draft form.
Drafted and reviewed by dozens of scientists within and outside government and endorsed earlier this year by the independent National Academy of Sciences, the report details findings drawn from a host of studies that are as close to certainties as science can produce.
There is some reasonable material in the report, but the hype is typified by this tweet by Katherine Hayhoe:
Official review process
David Wojick provided the following text:
From the USGCRP June Newsletter:
Scientific reviews. Once the TSU has conducted a technical edit of the First Order Draft for consistency and clarity (and the authors have approved those revisions), it will be sent to USGCRP member agency principals for the second of at least six review periods. A public comment period and concurrent review by a committee of experts at the National Academy of Sciences is anticipated for Fall 2017. In addition, we will be soliciting nominations for Review Editors to ensure that all submitted comments are appropriately addressed. More information can be found below, under Upcoming Opportunities to Engage.
The National Academies calls for reviewers [link]; nominations due by August 25, 2017.
NOAA is also soliciting nominations:
NOAA, on behalf of USGCRP, is soliciting nominations for Review Editors for the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4). Refer to the NCA4 Outline (accessible via http://www.globalchange.gov/content/nca4-outline) for a sense of the areas of expertise we seek.
The report will adhere to the Information Quality Act requirements (http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/info_quality.html) for quality, transparency, and accessibility as appropriate for a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment (HISA).
Nominations should be submitted via the web address specified below (https://contribute.globalchange.gov/) and must be received by September 8, 2017.
Submit your nominations!
CE Crowdsourced Review
I am not sure how the official reviewers will be selected by the USGCRP, but I am not too optimistic that this will provide a very critical review.
A red team effort is needed, with people selected outside of the USGCRP establishment. It seems possible that the Trump Administration will soon convene an adversarial review of the Climate Science Special Report. To give any formal Red Team a leg up on their work, I’m proposing that the CE Denizens conduct a crowdsourced review of the Report. I’m hoping that the collection of comments posted here might receive more attention than public comments submitted to the USGCRP.
So its pay up time for the Denizens. Its time to put some effort into critiquing this report. I’m asking for your help in identifying false, misleading, incomplete and/or overconfident statements in the draft. In your comments, please point to specific figures or text in the CSSR draft, with criticism backed up by citations of published data or models or analyses from the technical blogosphere (including previous CE posts).
A good example of a useful critique already in hand is Paul Homewood’s criticism of CSSR Figure ES.5 .
I look forward to seeing your responses and the comments they induce.
Moderation note: Moderation on this thread will be STRICTLY enforced. I’m posting in the parallel Discussion Thread for broader comments, and the usual hot air, sniping etc. This thread needs to be kept STRICTLY technical.