reduce greenhouse emissions.

I have appended my review of the new IPCC document (dated June 5, 1995) as well as that of the IPCC "Synthesis" of recent findings (September 14, 1995) for this Record. Throughout these reviews I have noted that I was denied critical results required to perform an adequate review. Several of my review comments, especially on Chapter 6 in the June review, speak directly to problems in the climate models. My comments consist of 4,639 words and resulted in not one discernable change in the text of the IPCC drafts.

What does all of this say about repeated reports that there will be grave ecological consequences from global warming, large sea level rise, and spread of tropical diseases, and other apocalyptic scenarios?

Simply this: Such reports cannot be trusted. Many, including the recent EPA report on sea level rise, are based upon models that are now known to have been greatly overpredicting warming. And prediction of effects that are based upon the newer, cooler, models, such as the ones described here, are simply premature, because data required to analyze those models has not been provided to those who are known to be critical reviewers.

REFERENCES

Intergovemmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1992. Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment. J.T. Houghton, Senior Editor. 198 pp.

Manabe S., et al., 1991. J. Climate 4, 785-818.

Michaels, P. J. et al., 1994. Technology: J. Franklin Inst. 331A, 123-133.

APPENDIX 1. Review of the overall 1995 Second Scientific Assessment on Climate Change (June 5, 1995) and the associated "Synthesis" document (September 14, 1995). Not one alteration of the original text was apparently made from these extensive comments.

TO: Mike MacCracken, U.S. Review Coordinator, IPCC 1995 Summary.

FROM: Patrick J. Michaels, University of Virginia

Following are my reviews of four sections of the IPCC 1995 draft, Chapters 3, 6, and the Policymakers Summary.

I could not provide a thorough review of Chapter 6 without the gridded transient output of sulfate/greenhouse models, particularly the one from UKMO. You know the story there.

REVIEW OF CHAPTER 3

A major concern about this chapter is the repeated reference to "trends" in climate data that often are not statistically significant. A trend that is not significant at an arbitrary (say, a = .05) level is in fact not distinguishable from zero, and is therefore neither "rising" nor "falling". Thus there are several points where, in order to meet this normal scientific standard, the text must be modified.

Specifically, I recommend the following changes:

Page 1, lines 15-17: "Radiosonde, Microwave Sounding Unit (satellite), and surfacemeasured temperatures show no statistically significant change beginning in 1979. After adjustment for volcanism and El Nino, the satellite data continue to show no significant trend."

For the same reason, the last sentence on page 1 should be removed, unless the ice coverage is below the mean at a statistically significant level; it is not.

Page 2, line 2. There has been no significant trend in global precipitation...

line 11-12. I don't know if the difference since 1987 is statistically significant in terms of annual average, but you should ask Dave Robinson at Rutgers to see if this statement can stand.

Beginning on line 22. SOI values 1990-1995 are not distinguishable from 1910-1917, a slightly longer period. The statement about the behavior between 1990-95 must therefore be deleted; leaving it in will compromise the scientific credibility of the document because critics will point to the similarity between the two periods (in spite of the fact that the global temperature was lower and that the transition from 1917 to 1920--after the prolonged El Nino ended--was perhaps the most notable warming period in the entire instrumental record)

Page 3 line 3. Again, the change in extratropical cyclone activity is not statistically significant (see Dolan and Davis, 1994), so the sentence should read, "There is no significant change in strong extratropical cyclone activity, however, intense tropical cyclone activity in the Atlantic has decreased significantly".

Line 13 is profoundly misleading and will subject the report to public criticism. It conveys the impression that the composite temperature indicator (Figure 3.22) is at its highest value; it clearly is not, and the highest values were reached in the 1930s with the big rise between the 19-teens and the 20s; look at the figure. For accuracy, the text should read, "Composite indicators of summer temperature show that a rapid rise occurred around 1920, and that the 1920s and 1930s the warmest decades since at least around 1400. This rise was prior to the major greenhouse emissions. Since then, composite temperatures have

UN

dropped slightly on a decadal scale." Again, take a look at figure 3.22 carefully.

Lines 25-26. The last sentence, while it may be true, surely is there to convey the impression that this is important. What is obviously more important is regional climate change, particularly because the projected warming is more likely to be night/winter/high latitude than anything else. There are plenty of regional changes within this magnitude range in the 20th century. Therefore the last sentence should be struck.

Page 6, lines 2-4. Combining satellite and surface data to reformulate SST is an interesting idea. You therefore should also attempt to combine the MSU and surface records, as MSU gives broader coverage. At any rate, the chapter as it stands gives those (like this author) who like to do that a perfect precedent. Combining surface and MSU records blows any significant trend out of the NH, SH and global records for the last 50 years, and reduces the century-scale warming trend by 50%. This should be noted somewhere in the

Page 7, line 22. First word must be changed to "all". Cite one that does not. If you can find one or two, change to "almost all".

Line 27. The significant warming there is only in the night (winter) temperature. Change to "Significant warming of winters since the 1950s...."

Line 31Add: "Sansom (1989) [Journal of Climate] found no significant change in mean temperatures averaged across Antarctica since 1957.

In addition, analysis of surface records shows no significant trend in mean Antarctic temperatures back to 1965, or 1967 if the radiosonde record is used (see attached figure) Thus all of the power in the post-IGY record is between 1957 and 1965. This will no doubt become public knowledge when Jones 1995 hits the press, so why risk credibility by not mentioning it now?

In addition, the cold 1994 data must be included; If you're going to use it in this report to demonstrate that global temperatures were warm, you had better also include the Antarctic figures or be subject to comments about subjective data inclusion.

Page 9, lines 34-36. None of these warmings are statistically significant at the .05 level. Add a sentence. "Inasmuch as none of these trends were statistically distinguishable from zero, these figures are mutually consistent".

Page 12, line 34. Lachenbruch and Marshall hypothesized a warming of 2-4°C "sometime in the last 100 years" in their 1986 paper. There are land records available for their region of study, and they show this warming was prior to 1950, or hardly consistent with a greenhouse enhancement; In fact, this is characteristic of much of the high latitude North American borehole studies and should be noted.