Nature magazine has given us an article by a Jane Qiu interviewing glaciologist Qin Dahe which provides a preview of the upcoming AR5 report. The article is a piece of triple A rated, (alarmist, advocate, activist) – of course – but it confirms our suspicion that the reasonable critiques of the alarmism are having no appreciable impact on the “science” or the cloak under which it is performed. Whle Qiu, spoke generally, he said it doesn’t mater if Himalayan glaciers melt in 20 or 200 years. I wonder if the ‘actual’ projection of 350 years matters to him as a glaciologist. The projection that far out is insane anyway but that is another matter. This paragraph contained a unique quote which I wonder how true it will turn out to be. My bold in the reply to the question below.

What can we expect from the fifth assessment report in 2013? There will be more data on changes in glacial volume as well as other components of the cryosphere, such as permafrost and snow cover. There is encouraging progress in the IPCC climate-modelling studies, with smaller gaps between observed and modelled global average temperature and carbon-dioxide concentration. We will be tackling questions such as whether climate change is accelerating, whether the Greenland ice sheet is stable, what roles clouds and aerosols have in climate forcing, and whether there will be more extreme climate events, such as droughts, floods, typhoons and hurricanes.

I wonder, did they change the models, the data or the interpretation. Perhaps all three but it doesn’t sound like McKitrick, McIntyre, Herman will be front and center in the modeling section.



