See Climate Audit: IPCC claim to have destroyed working documents violates objective, open and transparent process:
We’ve been following with interest David Holland’s efforts to obtain information on how IPCC review editors discharged their important duties under IPCC process, with the most recent progress report here. Here’s another update.
As noted in other posts, IPCC policies state:
"All written expert, and government review comments will be made available to reviewers on request during the review process and will be retained in an open archive in a location determined by the IPCC Secretariat on completion of the Report for a period of at least five years."
Despite this, IPCC Review Editor John Mitchell of the UK Met Office claimed to have destroyed all their working documents and correspondence pertaining to his duties as Review Editor and the Met Office also claims to have expunged all records.
David Holland has also made FOI inquiries to Keith Briffa, a lead author of AR4 chapter 6. Here’s a progress report documenting: May 5 - FOI request
May 6 - CRU Acknowledgement
June 3 - CRU Refusal Notice
June 4 - Holland Appeal
June 20 - CRU Rejection of Appeal
Fortress CRU #2: Confidential Agent Ammann
On March 31, 2008, David Holland sent a letter to Keith Briffa asking about several IPCC issues. In correspondence released from the Hadley Center, Briffa indicated his intention of being unresponsive. On May 15, Briffa sent an unresponsive reply to Holland, following which Holland initiated a FOI request on May 27, 2008 leading to an acknowledgement on June 3 and Refusal Notice on June 20. This one has additional interest in that Holland asked for copies of expert comments on IPCC chapter 6 sent directly by Caspar Ammann to Keith Briffa, sent outside the formal review process. Both Briffa and Ammann refused to release these comments. For some reason, Ammann seems to think that he is not subject to IPCC requirements that expert comments be open and that he is entitled to make secret comments.
UPDATE
Fortress Met Office continued
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3208
More obstruction from the Met Office, in which they have changed their obstruction strategy. Previously they said that Mitchell had destroyed all of this email correspondence. This prompted David Holland to ask for information on the date of the destruction and on records management policy at the Met Office.
Rather than answer the unanswerable, the Met Office has changed tactics. Now they say that they had made a mistake in reporting that they had held any of Mitchell’s email. Instead they now argue that Mitchell was acting “personally” when he acted as an IPCC Review Editor - sort of like gardening, or being a Methodist on Sunday or playing squash after work, I guess. I wonder if Mitchell booked vacation time for his jaunts to IPCC meetings or whether the Met Office paid his expenses. Would they also buy plants for his garden?
Steve - the issue is more than MDB based too - SW WA, SE Qld, eastern Queensland coast.
If you're into effect of Asian aerosols - check out my Rotstayn references. Moves circulation to deliver rain to NW WA.
Whether all this has been predicted by the AGW orthodoxy as you put it, I don't know. I though they were going for a drying of the sub-tropics. But should look it up.
IMO the southern hemisphere is not well catered for in research terms compared to the North. Can I substantiate that - hmmm.
Also you need to see stratospheric ozone depletion possibly exerting an anthropogenic influence as much as GHGS.
I believe CSIRO and BoM are right on the pace chasing all this down. And it is really down to just a few exceptional individuals. A handful almost.
Why is all this important - well it's the reality that drought brings to people. Those who become so desperate that they shoot themselves behind the shed.
And best conveyed in Jill Kerr Conway's classic book "The Road from Coorain" - her experience of it and escape from it.
http://www.amazon.com/Road-Coorain-Jill-Ker-Conway/dp/0679724362
So Steve - this is not about AGW and carbon tax - it's about what it is to be Australian.
Re (3) - errr no - as we are not simply doing a comparison of rainfall or river flow statistics. There is a vast amount of evidence in the modelling studies that teases all this apart to impart at least AGW influence. To not read and appreciate that work leaves you with half the job done. And we know that the evaporative flux of the Millenium drought is greater than the Federation drought. The post-hoc drought comparisons have been done. The inflows on this drought sequence are worst on record as far as we can determine. However that does not in itself prove that much - what does is the tie up with the climate system - a major change in southern hemisphere circulation, changes in the Walker circulation, sub-tropical ridge, ocean gyres. And a lot of modelling of that will impart an AGW influence. GHG - Ozone, land use change etc. To not be AGW curious at least is a major error IMO.
But no of you have worked out that decisions on water allocation - need to be made. What's you basis for that calculation gonna be?
Are you going with just the historical record or are you going to consider the modelling? Crunch point.