IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on ‘extreme weather’

This post will remain at the top for a few days, new stories will appear below this one

UPDATE1: Andrew Revkin at the NYT weighs in, and semi endorses the leak, see update below – Anthony

UPDATE2: Alternate links have been sent to me, should go faster now.  – Anthony

UPDATE3: The main site is down but a large “all in one” RAR file (and bittorrent) has been created by a readers, see below. – Anthony

UPDATE4: 7:30AM PST 12/14/12 reactions are now coming in worldwide, see here, and the IPCC is going to issue a statement today. – Anthony

UPDATE5: 8:30AM PST 12/14/12 The IPCC has issued a statement on the leak, see below. -Anthony

UPDATE6: 12PM PST 12/14/12 The real bombshell of the report is now evident, a lack of warming to match model projections, see it here

UPDATE7: 12:30PM PST 12/14/12 Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. Analysis of UN IPCC Draft report : IPCC ‘shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods’

UPDATE8: 5PM PST 12/14/12 Another IPCC reviewer speaks out, this time about water vapor trends – actual data and IPCC contradict each other.

UPDATE9: 2PM PST 12/16/12 A rebuttal to Steven Sherwood and the solar forcing pundits of the IPCC AR5 draft leak

Full AR5 draft leaked here, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing

(Alec Rawls) I participated in “expert review” of the Second Order Draft of AR5 (the next IPCC report), Working Group 1 (“The Scientific Basis”), and am now making the full draft available to the public. I believe that the leaking of this draft is entirely legal, that the taxpayer funded report report is properly in the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act, and that making it available to the public is in any case protected by established legal and ethical standards, but web hosting companies are not in the business of making such determinations so interested readers are encouraged to please download copies of the report for further dissemination in case this content is removed as a possible terms-of-service violation. My reasons for leaking the report are explained below. Here are the chapters:

From http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/
(which is down now, see updated links below in update #2)

Summary for Policymakers
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean
Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere
Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives
Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols
Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Chapter 8 Supplement
Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
Chapter 13: Sea Level Change
Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
Chapter 14 Supplement
Technical Summary

Why leak the draft report?

By Alec Rawls (email) [writing at http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/ ]

General principles

The ethics of leaking tax-payer funded documents requires weighing the “public’s right to know” against any harm to the public interest that may result. The press often leaks even in the face of extreme such harm, as when the New York Times published details of how the Bush administration was tracking terrorist financing with the help of the private sector Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), causing this very successful anti-terror program to immediately collapse.

That was a bad leak, doing great harm to expose something that nobody needed to know about. With the UN’s IPCC reports the calculus is reversed. UN “climate chief” Christina Figueres explains what is at stake for the public:

… we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.

So may we please see this “science” on the basis of which our existing energy infrastructure is to be ripped out in favor of non-existent “green” energy? The only reason for secrecy in the first place is to enhance the UN’s political control over a scientific story line that is aimed explicitly at policy makers. Thus the drafts ought to fall within the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.

The Obama administration implicitly acknowledged this when it tried to evade FOIA by setting up private “backdoor channels” for communications with the IPCC. If NCAR’s Gerald Meehl (a lead author of AR5′s chapter on near-term climate change), has working copies of the draft report (and he’s only one of dozens of U.S. government researchers who would), then by law the draft report (now finished) should be available to the public.

The IPCC’s official reason for wanting secrecy (as they explained it to Steve McIntyre in  January 2012) is so that criticisms of the drafts are not spread out across the internet but get funneled through the UN’s comment process. If there is any merit to that rationale it is now moot. The comment period ended November 30th so the comment process can no longer be affected by publication.

As for my personal confidentiality agreement with the IPCC, I regard that as vitiated by the systematic dishonesty of the report (“omitted variable fraud” as I called it in my FOD comments). This is a general principle of journalistic confidentiality: bad faith on one side breaks the agreement on the other. They can’t ask reviewers to become complicit in their dishonesty by remaining silent about it.

Then there is the specific content of the Second Order Draft where the addition of one single sentence demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole.

Lead story from the Second Order Draft: strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC

Compared to the First Order Draft, the SOD now adds the following sentence, indicated in bold (page 7-43, lines 1-5, emphasis added):

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is. This directly undercuts the main premise of the report, as stated in Chapter 8 (page 8-4, lines 54-57):

There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2.

The Chapter 8 authors (a different group than the Chapter 7 authors) are explicit here that their claim about natural forcing being small compared to anthropogenic forcing is based on an analysis in which the only solar forcing that is taken into account is TSI. This can be verified from the radiative forcing table on page 8-39 where the only solar variable included in the IPCC’s computer models is seen to be “solar irradiance.”

This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing.

The Chapter 8 premise that natural forcing is relatively small leads directly to the main conclusion of the entire report, stated in the first sentence of the Executive Summary (the very first sentence of the entire report): that advances since AR4 “further strengthen the basis for human activities being the primary driver in climate change” (p.1-2, lines 3-5). This headline conclusion is a direct descendant of the assumption that the only solar forcing is TSI, a claim that their own report no longer accepts.

The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work.

My full submitted comments (which I will post later) elaborate several important points. For instance, note that the Chapter 8 premise (page 8-4, lines 54-57) assumes that it is the change in the level of forcing since 1980, not the level of forcing, that would be causing warming. Solar activity was at historically high levels at least through the end of solar cycle 22 (1996), yet the IPCC is assuming that because this high level of solar forcing was roughly constant from 1950 until it fell off during solar cycle 23 it could not have caused post-1980 warming. In effect they are claiming that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, that you have to keep turning the flame up to get continued warming, an un-scientific absurdity that I have been writing about for several years (most recently in my post about Isaac Held’s bogus 2-box model of ocean equilibration).

The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.

President Obama is already pushing a carbon tax premised on the fear that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. Last week his people were at the UN’s climate meeting in Doha pretending that Hurricane Sandy was caused by human increments to CO2 as UN insiders assured the public that the next IPCC report will “scare the wits out of everyone” with its ramped-up predictions of human-caused global warming to come, but this is not where the evidence points, not if climate change is in any substantial measure driven by the sun, which has now gone quiet and is exerting what influence it has in the cooling direction.

The acknowledgement of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing should upend the IPCC’s entire agenda. The easiest way for the UN to handle this disruptive admission would be to remove it from their final draft, which is another reason to make the draft report public now. The devastating admission needs to be known so that the IPCC can’t quietly take it back.

Will some press organization please host the leaked report?

Most of us have to worry about staying within cautiously written and cautiously applied terms-of-service agreements. That’s why I created this new website. If it gets taken down nothing else gets taken with it. Media companies don’t have this problem. They have their own servers and publishing things like the draft IPCC report is supposed to be their bailiwick.

If the press has First Amendment protection for the publication of leaked materials even when substantial national security interests are at stake (the Supreme Court precedent set in the Pentagon Papers case), then it can certainly republish a leaked draft of a climate science report where there is no public interest in secrecy. The leaker could be at risk (the case against Pentagon leaker Daniel Ellsberg was thrown out for government misconduct, not because his activity was found to be protected) but the press is safe, and their services would be appreciated.

United States taxpayers have funded climate science to the tune of well over 80 billion dollars, all channeled through the funding bureaucracy established by Vice President Albert “the end is nigh” Gore when he served as President Clinton’s “climate czar.”  That Gore-built bureaucracy is still to this day striving to insure that not a penny of all those taxpayer billions ever goes to any researcher who is not committed to the premature conclusion that human contributions to atmospheric CO2 are causing dangerous global warming (despite the lack of any statistically significant warming for more than 15 years).

Acolytes of this bought “consensus” want to see what new propaganda their tax dollars have wrought and so do the skeptics. It’s unanimous, and an already twice-vetted draft is sitting now in thousands of government offices around the world. Time to fork it over to the people.

=============================================================

UPDATE1: Andrew Revkin writes in a story at the NYT Dot Earth today:

It’s important, before anyone attacks Rawls for posting the drafts (this is distinct from his views on their contents), to consider that panel report drafts at various stages of preparation have been leaked in the past by people with entirely different points of view.

That was the case in 2000, when I was leaked a final draft of the summary for policy makers of the second science report from the panel ahead of that year’s round of climate treaty negotiations. As I explained in the resulting news story, “A copy of the summary was obtained by The New York Times from someone who was eager to have the findings disseminated before the meetings in The Hague.”

Here’s a question I sent tonight to a variety of analysts of the panel’s workings over the years:

The leaker, Alec Rawls, clearly has a spin. But I’ve long thought that I.P.C.C. was in a weird losing game in trying to boost credibility through more semi-open review while trying to maintain confidentiality at same time. I’m sympathetic to the idea of having more of the I.P.C.C. process being fully open (a layered Public Library of Science-style approach to review can preserve the sanity of authors) in this age of enforced transparency (WikiLeaks being the most famous example).

I’ll post answers as they come in.

Full story at DotEarth

==============================================================

UPDATE2: Alternative links for AR5 WG1 SOD. At each page click on the button that says “create download link,” then “click here to download”:

Summary for Policymakers
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425211/SummaryForPolicymakers_WG1AR5-SPM_FOD_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 1: Introduction
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425214/Ch1-Introduction_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch01_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436270/Ch2_Obs-atmosur_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch02_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436276/Ch3_Obs-oceans_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch03_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436279/Ch4_obs-cryo_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch04_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436282/Ch5_Paleo_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch05_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436285/Ch6_Carbonbio_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch06_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436286/Ch7_Clouds-aerosols_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch07_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425217/Ch8_Radiative-forcing_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch08_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 8 Supplement
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436312/Ch8_supplement_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch08_SM_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436298/Ch9_models_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch09_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436302/Ch10_attribution_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch10_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436303/Ch11_near-term_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch11_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425220/Ch12_long-term_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch12_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 13: Sea Level Change
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425221/Ch13_sea-level_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch13_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425222/Ch14_future-regional_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch14_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 14 Supplement
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436309/Ch14_supplement_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch14_SM_Final.pdf.html

Technical Summary
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425223/TechnicalSummary_WG1AR5-TS_FOD_All_Final.pdf.html

======================================================

UPDATE3: a large “all in one” RAR file has been created by a reader “hippo”

Link to the entire set of documents, as single RAR archive:
http://www.filedropper.com/wwwstopgreensuicidecom

And now a bittorrent magnet link:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3f31ecb2a557732ea8d42e14b87aca7efb5dbcc7&dn=IPCCAR5&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.cc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80

reader “krischel” writes:

It’s a folder with each individual PDF in it.

If you have a torrent client like Transmission, you should be able to copy/paste open up that magnet URL and start downloading.

Replaced Link with the newer one. -ModE

==================================================

UPDATE4: 7:30AM PST 12/14/12 reactions are now coming in worldwide, see here, and the IPCC is going to issue a statement today.

UPDATE5: IPCC statement here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/statement/Statement_WGI_AR5_SOD.pdf

Full text here in this WUWT post (easier reading)

About these ads
This entry was posted in FOI, IPCC and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

503 Responses to IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on ‘extreme weather’

  1. pokerguy says:

    Deftly and even courageously handled. Many sincere thank-you’s/

  2. omnologos says:

    Acolytes of Co2 as “climate god of the gaps” should’ve understood by now that those gaps are bound to be filled, one by one…

  3. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    Chapter 2 link broken…

  4. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    Chapter 6 as well….

  5. Geoff says:

    The connection between solar activity and atmospheric temperatures is now so clear that even the naysayers are unable to continue to discount it. The end is near (end of AGW).

  6. Day By Day says:

    Thank you for this. Very Important and I hope MSM–someone representing MSM picks this up.

  7. David P says:

    warming up the popcorn machine…. :)

  8. Congratulations. You explain the science adroitly and give a masterful overview of the issues from the top down. Even politicians should understand this gripping story. Thank you.

  9. graphicconception says:

    “The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. ”

    It won’t be long before the world’s leading climate scientists have caught us up!
    (Assuming it makes it to the final version.)

  10. Don B says:

    The graphs on page 3 of Kirkby’s paper “Cosmic Rays and Climate,” published in 2008, based on earlier research, are compelling. Solar variability has an obvious impact on climate.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

  11. Alec Rawls says:

    I don’t know what is up with the broken links. I just redid the chapter 2 link and reloaded both the home page and the PDF but the link is still broken. I’m working on it.

  12. Gary Pearse says:

    Since getting policy across is a numbers game and the numbers who have bought into the CAGW IPCC stuff is large, plus most voters don’t read this stuff anyway, plus, except for the comparatively few brave CliSci academics, the corrupted scholarship of Universities, IPCC can with impunity erase this from the report, saying it was a draft and tightening up the final we noted this inconsistency. Gee, I hate it when I get this way.

  13. grumpyoldmanuk says:

    Executive summary link broken.

  14. Rick K says:

    Alec, many thanks for your efforts!

  15. Rob Dawg says:

    The IPCC has got to specifically disavow their previous 4 reports as being invalid based upon the science. Shock, surprise.

  16. vukcevic says:

    Richard Treadgold says:
    Even politicians should understand this gripping story.

    In the East Europe politicians are far more dexterous in dealing with both ‘subversive skeptics’ and indeed with the climate change itself
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/10/solar-cycle-24-still-in-a-slump/#comment-1172258

  17. oldseadog says:

    The chapters take AGES to load and no MSM reporter is going to wait to read them unless they are already sceptical, and we know how few of those there are.
    Also there is no “e-mail” link at the end here and I don’t know how to forward this post to a newspaper news desk any other way.

  18. Kerry Eubanks says:

    RE: Gary Pearse’ comment. Somebody has to be first. AR5gate?

  19. TrueNorthist says:

    I had forgotten what it is like to have a 56k modem, that is until I downloaded ch.’s 7 and 8. ;)

  20. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Henrik Svensmark deserves the Nobel Prize for Physics and the Nobel Peace Prize as well (for saving the world from the tyranny and stupidity of the UN’s IPCC).

  21. Luther Wu says:

    We’ve drunk the river dry- sucked up all their bandwidth. They didn’t see us coming.

  22. Otter says:

    Posted a quick link to this to the site I work off of, encouraging anyone capable to DL the report. Also linked back to here in my own comments. Hopefully this will get widely spread around.

  23. daveburton says:

    Otter, here’s a useful tool for downloading the whole site/report:
    http://www.httrack.com/

  24. Rob Dawg says:

    From the draft:
    “Since the early 1970s, ocean warming and expansion and glacier melting have been the dominant contributors to global mean sea level rise, together explaining about 80% of the observed rise.”

    If I could stop laughing I’d find the time to point out the numerous errors in this one claim.

  25. North of 43 and south of 44 says:

    The Chapter 2 and 6 links have been updated on: http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/

  26. Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:

    Alec Rawls says:
    December 13, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    I don’t know what is up with the broken links. I just redid the chapter 2 link and reloaded both the home page and the PDF but the link is still broken. I’m working on it.

    Some software will break links that are not inclosed in URL tags if you edit the entry a second time. May not apply but is a continuing problem on some web forums.

  27. Alec Rawls says:

    Links should work now. The IPCC used a “+” character in the naming of chapters 2 and 6 that doesn’t work in urls so I had to remove it from the PDF names.

  28. You do realize that amplifying a negative number just gives you a bigger negative number, right? In other words, you’re arguing for bigger solar cooling since 1980.

  29. Dave Broad says:

    The IPCC could just twist it so say, yes that explains a decline in our trend but it’s only spared us worse agw temporarily.

  30. vukcevic says:

    Observation by NASA scientist:
    One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet.
    My calculations show that combining heliospheric magnetic field (controlling input of the cosmic rays basis of the Svensmark’s theory) with changes in the Earth’s magnetic field indeed shows close correlation with the temperature variability in the N. Hemisphere on the annual, decadal and multi-decadal scale.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
    p.s. note to Alec Rawls: if you get in touch I’ll email the Excel file with all data and calculations.

  31. kim says:

    It’s the Son, stupid. Or the siblings rivaling for pre-eminence.
    ============

  32. gnomish says:

    bravo.
    next time, though, put copies on some free file hosts before posting links.
    they’ll have the bandwidth
    http://www.smallfiles.org/
    http://www.peejeshare.com/
    http://www.fileswap.com/
    and there are others that also allow direct links and have no sign up

  33. David L. Hagen says:

    Cloud change – another major “omitted variable”.
    Re section: 12.4.3.5 Clouds
    The declining cloud cover reported Eastman & Warren 2012 is an equally major “omitted variable”.

    My proposed summary of Eastman & Warren is as follows:

    “The global average cloud cover declined about 1.56% over 39 years (1979 to 2009) or ~0.4%/decade, primarily in middle latitudes at middle and high levels (Eastman & Waren, 2012). Declining clouds appear to be a major contributor to the observed global warming. A 1 percentage point decrease in albedo (30% to 29%) would increase the black-body radiative equilibrium temperature about 1°C, about equal to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. e.g. by a 1.5% reduction in clouds since they form up to 2/3rds of global albedo (IPCC report AR4 1.5.2 p.114). The challenge now is distinguish what portion of rising CO2 reduced clouds and what portion of natural reduction in clouds raised ocean temperatures increasing CO2.”

    See: “Ryan Eastman, Stephen G. Warren, A 39-Year Survey of Cloud Changes from Land Stations Worldwide 1971-2009: Long-Term Trends, Relation to Aerosols, and Expansion of the Tropical Belt Journal of Climate 2012 ; e-View doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00280.1”

    For discussion, graphs see Some confirmation of Spencer’s cloud hypothesis – it is getting less cloudy and warmer at the same time WUWT Aug 20, 2012

    In his Solar Accumulation Theory, David Stockwell provides further evidence for major solar causation for warming.

    The solar amplifying mechanism together with the major trend of declining cloud cover create influences that could entirely explain ALL the warming. This raises the major causation puzzle (aka “chicken and egg”) of which parameters are the cause and which the consequence.

    Ben Santer et al. 2012 Identifying human influences on atmospheric temperature
    now acknowledge:

    On average, the models analyzed … overestimate the warming of the troposphere. Although the precise causes of such differences are unclear…
    The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes.

    See Stockwell on Santer: Climate Models are Exaggerating Warming – We Don’t Know Why and
    Q: Where Do Climate Models Fail? A: Almost Everywhere

    Where do the models fail?
    1. Significantly warmer than reality (95% CI) in the lower troposphere at all latitudes, except for the arctic.
    2. Significantly warmer than reality (95% CI) in the mid-troposphere at all latitudes, except for the possible polar regions.
    3. Significant warmer that reality (95% CI) in the lower stratosphere at all latitudes, except possibly polar regions.
    Answer: Everywhere except for polar regions where uncertainty is greater.

    Attributing most of the global warming to fossil CO2 appears increasingly to be an “argument from ignorance” with little statistically justifiable basis once these issues are identified and quantified. Consequently “Minor anthropogenic warming” will likely be the major contender – when we can actually quantify (“about”) how much of < 50% is due to anthropogenic CO2!

  34. David L. Hagen says:

    vukcevic
    Alex above provides his direct email link. alecATrawlsDOTorg

  35. Dr T G Watkins says:

    Bravely done Alec. A glimmer of hope, maybe, that the suicidal energy policies promulgated by the scientifically illiterate LibDims/Green politicians in the UK can be overturned before it’s too late.
    Christopher Booker will undoubtedly take this up in the Sunday Telegraph (is he the only honest journalist in the UK – hallowed be his name :-) ) but what is needed is Andrew Neil, Jeremy Paxman or even Andrew Gilligan to be involved.

  36. katabasis1 says:

    I salute your bravery sir!

    I have reblogged and tweeted this. I’ll upload the files for sharing all over the place too if they issue a cease and desist against your site.

    This looks like quite an important development!

  37. Adam says:

    Hope you have a good lawyer because the guys you are up against have infinite resources to ruin your life with.

  38. eco-geek says:

    IPCCGate

    Ah! So that’s why the UN/COP 18 dropped the IPCC.

    It’s an unfair COP.

  39. Stephen Wilde says:

    More meridional jets give the required cloudiness and albedo increase without having to involve GCRs and the Svensmark hypothesis.

  40. Bob Tisdale says:

    Alec, go to chapter 10, Figure 10.5. They’re still using regression analysis to remove TSI, ENSO & volcanic aerosols from the instrument temperature record for attribution. (And we know they can’t remove the effects of ENSO that way.) In other words, they’re not considering enhanced solar contributions when it comes to the bottom line.

    Regards

  41. RobW says:

    How many more nails will it take to finally put the AGW coffin in the ground for good.

  42. Alec Rawls says:

    You do realize that amplifying a negative number just gives you a bigger negative number, right? In other words, you’re arguing for bigger solar cooling since 1980. – Dana Nuccitelli

    Dana seems to have missed this paragraph of my discussion:

    My full submitted comments (which I will post later) elaborate several important points. For instance, note that the Chapter 8 premise (page 8-4, lines 54-57) assumes that it is the change in the level of forcing since 1980, not the level of forcing, that would be causing warming. Solar activity was at historically high levels at least through the end of solar cycle 22 (1996), yet the IPCC is assuming that because this high level of solar forcing was roughly constant from 1950 until it fell off during solar cycle 23 it could not have caused post-1980 warming. In effect they are claiming that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, that you have to keep turning the flame up to get continued warming, an un-scientific absurdity that I have been writing about for several years (most recently in my post about Isaac Held’s bogus 2-box model of ocean equilibration).

    Because the level of solar forcing did not rise after 1980 does not mean that the solar effect was in the cooling direction. Solar activity remained notably high until 1996. (Usoskin dates the end of the 20th century “grand maximum” of solar activity to 2000.) If enhanced solar forcing is a reality, this high solar activity might not have caused quite as much warming in the 90s as the 80s, but it would still have been causing warming.

  43. Stephen Richards says:

    We are kidding ourselves if we think this info will get anywhere a grey cell of our corrupt politicians. The only thing that will change their minds is MONEY $£€. Their chief scientists will make sure that they don’t see any info of import.

  44. Larry Logan says:

    Alec, ditto, a courageous move.

    If helpful to others — one way to move these large files at high speed directly between people in a confidential manner is Scayl. http://www.scayl.com. It’s a free, peer-to-peer email app with virtually unlimited file size attachments (e.g., 50Gb), moving at high speed, private versus being discoverable as with your normal email. Disclaimer, I’m an advisor to the company.

  45. TRM says:

    Thank you!

  46. Pingo says:

    Harrabin, Black and Craven stick their fingers in their ears.

  47. Alec Rawls says:

    Vuc, please do send me your excel sheet. Just know that I’m criticizing the “consensus” as an economist, exposing mistakes (if simply omitting strongly evidenced indirect solar effects is a mistake) that are easily recognized without without being a scientist. I might not be able to make heads or tails of your theory! (AlecAtRawlsDotOrg)

  48. georgi says:

    I think there might be some bandwidth issues! just trying to download now

  49. TinyCO2 says:

    We may be causing an unintended denial of service attack by trying to all download at once.

  50. A.D. Everard says:

    Alec, this is brilliant. Thank you!

    C’mon, MSM, here’s a chance to prove your worth!

  51. Doug Allen says:

    Alec Rawls- thank you for leaking the draft and pointing out the important contradiction between chapter 7 evidence and the chapter 8 claim. I don’t think you need apologize for breaking confidentiality. I hope the draft inconsistency and contradiction get a wide circulation. I wish would would stick to what you’re good at and not venture into partisan politics because it makes one doubt your judgement elsewhere. For instance, you present no evidence for your claim that “President Obama is already pushing a carbon tax…” That might be true, but your link does not support it, on the contrary saying, “Obama said he doubted there was enough political agreement for the tax.” You also state “Last week his (Obama’s people) were at the UN’s climate meeting in Doha pretending that Hurricane Sandy was caused by human increments to CO2.” Your link shows no evidence of that. Do you have any evidence?
    You and I want the IPCC assessment and policy recommendations to be based on scientific evidence. I hope we all also want your political assessments (if they are even pertinent to your post) to be based on evidence. Obama has a lot of supporters who promote policy that others who voted for him do not agree with. Don’t confuse him with some of his extremist supporters. Obviously some of the more extreme talk radio conservatives should not be confused with, for example, Romney, either.
    I agree with you about government funding for climate science, not just our government, but virtually all of them. Their tunnel vision has wasted billions of research dollars, held back genuine scientific investigation, created tragic unintended consequences such as the fuel for food program, and prolonged untold suffering and death because of the opportunity costs of not using that wasted money on known and solvable problems such as creating safe water supplies for third world countries.
    Any student of climate can say with confidence that the IPCC Fourth Assessment was wrong about either attribution or climate sensitivity or both. The chapter 7 authors are admitting as much about attribution. I will now go back and read the entire Summary for Policymakers, Supplement and Summary. The IPCC now has a year to get the policy summary consistent with the evidence. Your post will start that process I hope.

  52. Ian H says:

    The best way to disseminate this kind of thing in a fashion which does not depend on bandwidth and which cannot be suppressed or blocked is to put it in a torrent.

  53. Peter in Ottawa says:

    Just want to take a few seconds to say thanks…without authors like this truth would be some industrially-produced illusion.

    I appreciate your efforts!

  54. Otter says:

    I see James Delingpole has already written on this, may the word (and multiple thousands of downloads thereof!) spread swiftly!

  55. ntesdorf says:

    Thanks, Alec Rawls. Thanks for a courageous move. It is fascinating reading. Someone blows the trumpet and the walls come tumbling down.

  56. georgi says:

    James Dellingpole has been quick to report it. I know he doesn’t really understand the issues but give him credit, he must have a wuwt in his browser 24/7!

  57. Auto says:

    Desperately slow.
    But getting on eor two of the linked documents. S l o w l y.

    Maximum kudos to Alec Rawls. Maximum!

  58. georgi says:

    as Alec said – this is very important

    “There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2. [8.5.2; Figure 8.19]”

    who on earth thinks the solar effect is limited to TSI? I have ‘very high confidence’ that if they only consider solar TSI then their conclusions are ‘very likely’ to be bollox.

  59. manicbeancounter says:

    It took me about half an hour to download chapter 6. However, the chapter to concentrate on is the summary for policy makers. This is the only one that most people read, and (like the pronouncements from the Kremlin in the 1970s and 1980s) needs some interpretation.
    I hope to post up some comments shortly.

  60. Its only a “game changing admission” if you ignore the following four paragraphs. e.g.:
    .
    7.4.5.3 Synthesis
    Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong arguement against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.


  61. “Dana seems to have missed this paragraph of my discussion…”

    I didn’t miss it, it’s just wrong. So I gather the answer to my question is “no”, you don’t realize that you’re arguing for amplified solar cooling.

  62. To add a bit of context, the paragraph you cite is under the heading “Correlations Between Cosmic Rays and Properties of Aerosols and Clouds”. When it says “the forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations” is it referring to changes in clouds and aerosols, not temperature as some people seem to be assuming. The subsequent four paragraphs proceed to argue that there is no, in fact, evidence of a link between GCRs and temperatures. While this is a rather clever cherry-pick, I really would suggest reading it in context if you want to be taken seriously.

  63. Jimbo says:

    I am beginning to notice co2 alarmism shifting ever so slowly towards rational discourse. Could it have anything to do with the 16 years of lack of warming? Could it have something to do with the IPCC co2 / temperature projections diverging with observations? Just askin.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

  64. mib8 says:

    Holy bit-bucket, Batman! This thing is huge.

    Don’t these people have anything productive to do?!? (More evidence of a surplus and mal-employment of STEM workers.)

  65. Kev-in-Uk says:

    I’m working forwards through the list – up to chap3 – hope someone is coming from the bottom of the list and working backwards just in case of some mysterious internet crash!

  66. D.I. says:

    More Clim-astrology from so called ‘Experts’ with graphs that show no value for 0.0.
    Do we have to Guess what 0.0 is?

  67. georgi says:

    from the BBC interview between Harrabin and Phil Jones…http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

    BBC – If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

    Phil Jones – The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing

    only considering TSI by any chance?! The fact that solar ‘activity’ and global warming have both increased since 1700 might make some people want to look at bit closer at any number of solar mechanisms?

  68. georgi says:

    from summary for policy makes page 8

    “There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the Earth System due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance”

    I wonder if Judith Curry shares this confidence?

  69. Just so it’s clear why you’re wrong, aside from the fact that there isn’t a 60-year lag between TSI and global temp changes, cosmic rays are directly correlated with solar activity (specifically solar magnetic field), so if solar magnetic field isn’t increasing right now, it’s not going to deflect more GCRs, which means there won’t be less cloud seeding (though there’s no concrete evidence GCRs successfully seed clouds anyway, as Zeke has noted), which means there won’t be more GCR-induced warming. Your hypothesis is wrong on every possible level.

    You’re basically arguing that fewer clouds are now being seeded because based on the reduced GCR flux from a solar irradiance increase 60+ years ago. Sorry, even if the GCR hypothesis were correct, it wouldn’t take 60+ years for a GCR to seed a cloud. That’s absurd.

  70. hippo says:

    Downloaded the entire site. No errors, only slow connection.

  71. Chris R. says:

    This is going to make Leif Svalgaard mad, since he doesn’t believe the GCR-cloud link
    is significant.

  72. georgi says:

    i downloaded it all Kev – all backed up on University computer system! printing off summary to watch with the cricket tomorrow morning!!

  73. Gunga Din says:

    I suspect that the CO2 alarmism has put in place or moved the measures for control of it far enough along that they feel they can keep the measures and slowly lose the cause for them.
    The general public has forgotten the predictions haven’t happened. They’ve just been left with the impression that Climate is something we can control. Once the measures and the authority is in place and established, they can be turned to other purposes. Look at what’s happened to the USEPA. We’re now looking at setting up a “UNEPA”.

  74. Kev-in-Uk says:

    georgi says:
    December 13, 2012 at 3:09 pm
    jolly good – not too worried about the slow connection now!

  75. JJ says:

    Zeke Hausfather says:

    Its only a “game changing admission” if you ignore the following four paragraphs. e.g.:

    Nope. Those paragraphs, in addition to being in cognitave dissonance inducing inconsistency with respect to the game changing admission, are loads of fun in themselves:

    Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way.

    LOL High agreement from medium evidence? Demonstrates that the ‘agreement’ is not based on the evidence. “High agreement from medium evidence” is pretty much ‘global warming’ in a nutshell – except that it is mostly high agreement from low evidence, by IPCC’s own admission.

    The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong arguement against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.

    Handwaving. Patently unscientific handwaving. Exactly the same sort of patently unscientific handwaving that was used to dismiss the climatically significant solar contribution that is now grudgingly admitted.

    Honest Kuhnians will recognize the flailing defense of the failing paradigm when they see it. Popperians are just happy to watch the freaking witch doctors finally starting to squirm.

  76. georgi says:

    It doesn’t even depend on whether GCR link is provable or not. In such a complex system as Sun/Atmosphere there could be all sorts of subtle mechanisms at work. Different wavelengths affecting different components at different heights, solar field and earth field interaction. We know so little about cloud formation.

    To look at the TSI and say it hasn’t changed enough to affect the climate is naive at best.

  77. Malcolm says:

    Anthony, I think it would be appropriate to kindly ask Vincent Courtillot if he could make a guest post about his current research and where his conclusions are heading – the timing would be perfect. Among other things, it appears that he has identified a very strong solar relationship with known modes of atmospheric oscillation.

  78. Jean Parisot says:

    Zeke,

    So there is no evidence of a link between temperature and clouds, or are clouds ignored because the problem is too hard?

  79. hippo says:

    Site is down

  80. HM says:

    5oo (internal seever) error.
    Such is all I get when I try to download any chapter.

  81. Michael Cohen says:

    Are there any copies available yet at high-bandwidth sites? We thank you for your courage but I advise you in the future to consider the logistical risks.

  82. Fat Tony says:

    I don’t think this is a game changer at all. The Summary for Policymakers is all that the media and politicians read; as usual it’s full of dogmatic pronouncements about the near certaintainty of CAGW and the dire consequences which will ensue if we don’t hand our cash and sovereignity over to a pack of UN bureaucrats intent on world government! This hasn’t been about the Science for ages: it’s a political/religious movement akin to Islam in its zeal to control us all.

  83. Tapdog says:

    Download issues. Server Error 500.

  84. Alec Rawls says:

    I just upgraded the hosting account, which supposedly will increase the bandwidth considerably. Not sure when it will kick in.

    Doug Allen seems to be right. Apparently Obama has not actually renewed his push for carbon taxes. I was misled by the title of the article: “Exxon backs Obama plan to impose climate change fees.” I should have written that Obama is being pushed to have another go at carbon taxes.

    Ditto for my bit about the Obama delegation to COP18 in Doha claiming Sandy was caused by global warming. I knew Obama’s campaign had linked Sandy to global warming so I assumed the title “Doha delegation using hurricane Sandy as a call to action,” was about the U.S. delegation. My bad.

  85. Robin says:

    When the IPCC and the UN generally say science they mean the social sciences, not the hard sciences. Under the social sciences they can model based on theories and assumptions. They also mean education which is now classified as a social science as it has changed from being about instructing knowledge. Now it is about changing human behavior in the future.

    The IPCC report is designed to change human behavior in the future based on theories of a different type of society and economy. I walked through this social science and education as transformative tools for what Figueres has in mind this summer after Anthony released his real temp data. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/if-reality-is-ignored-or-disregarded-when-do-we-become-a-state-against-its-people/

    The Transformative change figures is referring to is the Belmont Challenge and the Future Earth Alliance I have been writing about since early summer. The FEA goes operational in 2013 and the UK and US are the leads in the Belmont Forum. But many other countries are involved as well. This IPCC report is meant to justify those machinations as “necessary.”

    Right. In the sense that Doha, Rio, Cancun, and Copenhagen boondoggles become necessary once you get the fun experience.

  86. ralph Selman says:

    Alex, Thank you. If there is legal trouble, I am ready to contribute.

  87. D.I. says:

    Science at its best,
    What a joke.

  88. Bill Illis says:

    Dana Nuccitelli’s latest post at Skeptical Science leaves out 90% of the relevant information which the reader should understand. I’m sure IPCC AR5 did this as well.

    Dana’s chart (which was published no less).

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data.jpg

    But it leaves out 90% of the picture. This is what it is supposed to show when all the relevant information is included.

    http://s16.postimage.org/mni8u7bvp/OHC_GHG_and_Missing_Energy.png

    So, I think any comments made should be viewed in that light.

  89. Janef20 says:

    Fat Tony – I am equally cynical. I watch the posts when the NYTimes comes out (yesterday) to say that snow-skiing is going to be a thing of the past. 200 posters joined in bemoaning the permanent snow loss (one-year) in NH and immediately brought up the storm Sandy as unimpeachable evidence of AGW.

    My interest has turned lately to looking for a link with Islam. It seems to me that environmentalism as an ideology is as significant a threat to Western Civ as Islam. So I am expecting there will be growing political links between the two. I still haven’t worked out how, except to be sure that streams of money and power are behind it.

  90. Energetic says:

    The website seems to be done for the moment, How about putting everything in a torrent?

  91. ConfusedPhoton says:

    What science? This is the Gospel according to the CAGW church. No heresy allowed or the thought police will come.
    “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.”
    Ah the smell of McCarthyism in the morning!

  92. Antwerpenaar says:

    Usual self-serving claptrap. I’m a European taxpayer, and I didn’t actually want the report early – I wanted it issued in a controlled fashion, properly presented. But then we Europeans don’t matter, do we? And besides, this Alec Rawls guy has made his name by climbing over the backs of all the other team members, so that’s OK then.

    REPLY: Now we know who put the “twerp” in Antwerp ;-) – Anthony

  93. krischel says:

    Mirror? Torrent?

  94. Antwerpenaar says:

    Exactly Anthony – no good answer, so issue an insult, business as usual!

    REPLY: It was humor for the humorless. note the ;-) – A

  95. ColdOldMan says:

    Same here, I DL the first 3 chapters and then zilch.Assume they had sent round the extraordinary rendition team. Hope it’s back on line soonest.

  96. Server is down. :-(

    I’m guessing that the Summary for Policymakers can be summarised as

    “it’s the CO2 what done it, Guv.”

  97. Gary H says:

    Chapter 13 – Sea Level Change
    See fig. 13.17 (page 106 of 110). Acceleration of sea level rise – - begins immediately.

  98. hippo says:

    I am also an European taxpayer. And I would like to see this IPCC crap exposed as soon as possible as the crap it is. Together with all its fantasies, machinations and public scaring about the greatest hoax of all time.

    As a consequence of the previous IPCC reports, I am now paying 0.12 Eurocent tax for every kWh I use, and the sum (energy + tax) is being taxed at 21% for VAT.

    Thanks a lot, the energy itself is 7 Eurocents/kWh?

    (7+12)*1,21= 23 Eurocents/kWh

    A more than 3 fold increase of the bare cost of the energy I consume?

    No way.

  99. Steve Keohane says:

    I’m getting a file not found on chapter 7.

  100. manicbeancounter says:

    The coded language of the Summary for Policymakers is very revealing. I have posted up some initial observations on pages 1 to 9.
    http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/12/14/ar5-first-order-draft-summary-for-policymakers-a-few-notes-on-pages-1-to-8/

    Major points
    1. No admission of lack of recent rise in the surface temperature record.
    2. But the lack of recent rise is accounted for by a step change in the warming in the Southern Oceans.
    3. AR4 got it wrong on decreasing precipitation in the tropics (which underlay Africagate), and they got it wrong on increasing hurricanes.
    4. Sea level rise is not accelerating. In fact the recent rise since 1993 is similar to the 1930-1950 period.
    5. Global glacier melt is not accelerating. Himalayas do not even get a mention.
    6. AR4 massively overstated aerosols. The implication is that CO2 can no longer be shorthand for anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
    7. Medieval Warm Period gains more recognition than in AR4. However, recent studies will render AR5 out of date before it is even published.

    Others may have a different interpretation.

  101. Krazykiwi says:

    Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

    Anyone hazard a guess as to the liklihood of this sentence remaining in the final report? 0% springs to mind.

  102. hippo says:

    working on making all data available. Keep reading

  103. Steve says:

    I stopped trying to download after the first three links returned an error, ( server problem ).

    PLEASE – test the links and server before you publish them ( public ).

  104. Alec Rawls says:

    Alternative links for AR5 WG1 SOD. At each page click on the button that says “create download link,” then “click here to download”:

    Summary for Policymakers
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425211/SummaryForPolicymakers_WG1AR5-SPM_FOD_Final.pdf.html

    Chapter 1: Introduction
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425214/Ch1-Introduction_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch01_All_Final.pdf.html

    Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436270/Ch2_Obs-atmosur_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch02_All_Final.pdf.html

    Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436276/Ch3_Obs-oceans_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch03_All_Final.pdf.html

    Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436279/Ch4_obs-cryo_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch04_All_Final.pdf.html

    Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436282/Ch5_Paleo_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch05_All_Final.pdf.html

    Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436285/Ch6_Carbonbio_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch06_All_Final.pdf.html

    Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436286/Ch7_Clouds-aerosols_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch07_All_Final.pdf.html

    Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425217/Ch8_Radiative-forcing_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch08_All_Final.pdf.html

    Chapter 8 Supplement
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436312/Ch8_supplement_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch08_SM_Final.pdf.html

    Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436298/Ch9_models_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch09_All_Final.pdf.html

    Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436302/Ch10_attribution_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch10_All_Final.pdf.html

    Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436303/Ch11_near-term_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch11_All_Final.pdf.html

    Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425220/Ch12_long-term_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch12_All_Final.pdf.html

    Chapter 13: Sea Level Change
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425221/Ch13_sea-level_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch13_All_Final.pdf.html

    Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425222/Ch14_future-regional_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch14_All_Final.pdf.html

    Chapter 14 Supplement
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436309/Ch14_supplement_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch14_SM_Final.pdf.html

    Technical Summary
    http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425223/TechnicalSummary_WG1AR5-TS_FOD_All_Final.pdf.html

  105. hippo says:

    @Steve

    The links were all correct and working. I have downloaded the entire site. Trying now to get it up and running. But this takes a while. Sorry.

  106. Kev-in-Uk says:

    downloaded all ok – worked fine here after the slow start. Now for some reading (but not til tomorrow as 1 am here!)
    well done Alex

  107. Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:

    I predict that we will see this slow creep toward what legitimate science has been tellling us for years, and in about 10 years or so, they will come out with an announcement that due to their intense research efforts they have discovered systemic errors in the early studies into global warming by the (now retired) early proponents of “the cause”. During that time they will systematically groom some other cause celeb to take global warnings place and act as the magic word that gets funding for new research.

    It will be couched in terms like “we suspected all along that there were problems with the models but it took us 25 years to tease this complex puzzle apart, and thanks to our devoted and diligent research we have now come to understand some of those weaknesses in the early theory.

    Like the cooling of the 1970′s that they have tried to push into oblivion, in the future they will down play the certainty and alarm that the whole scam was sold on, and try to shift the narrative to the slow methodical march of good science solving a very complex problem that involved a few dead end ideas that took decades to prove were non-productive. All the certainties of catastrophic consequences will be white washed and shape shifted to suit the new cause celeb and the game will continue under a new name.

    Thanks to the media’s errors of both omission and commission the future public will be sold this bill of goods and your children will have to jump up and down and scream over the propaganda to convince anyone that there was in the early 21′s century a thing called catastrophic global warming and all the predictions about ice melting and such were just over blown rhetoric of over zealous media types and never were the actual position of the peer reviewed literature of the day and the actual climate researchers who were so diligently trying to get to the truth.

    Larry
    Please check back in 15 – 20 years and let me know if that turned out to be correct.

  108. RockyRoad says:

    Antwerpenaar says:
    December 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    Usual self-serving claptrap. I’m a European taxpayer, and I didn’t actually want the report early – I wanted it issued in a controlled fashion, properly presented. But then we Europeans don’t matter, do we? And besides, this Alec Rawls guy has made his name by climbing over the backs of all the other team members, so that’s OK then.

    Your hypocricy is universe-shattering, Ant. You really should look up the term “shill”, for that is what you are for the UN and the EU. Or is that the UNEU?

    By the way, what’s your vested interested in “Green Energy”, Ant? Are you a land owner with a bunch of windmills paying you off handsomely? You must have some self-serving angle, otherwise you’d be hopping mad with your skyrocketing electricity prices and interrupted services.

  109. Dave says:

    thanks for what you have done. The AGW was bogus to begin with.

  110. Manfred says:

    This is perhaps the most prominent example, the relationship between solar activity and climate in the North Atlantic region:

    http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/bond-et-al-2001.gif

    From this graph it should be crystal clear, what will happen, if the sun slips into a Maunder style minimum again. Devastating for temperatures and agriculture in Northern Europe, North America and North Asia. These alarmists truely have to be stopped now.

  111. William McClenney says:

    Not a single link worked at 5:07 PST

  112. Alec Rawls says:

    Zeke Hausfather thinks that when the draft report says “the forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations” it is “referring to changes in clouds and aerosols, not temperature, as some people seem to be assuming.”

    Wrong. The “empirical relationships” the report is referring to are correlations between solar activity and temperature, or rainfall, or ice rafting, or some other indicator of climate.

    Zeke also cites how the report denigrates the cosmic-ray-cloud theory. That’s right. And what the authors did in the First Order Draft was use their lack of satisfaction with this proposed mechanism for how solar activity might be affecting climate as a rationale for ignoring the mountain of evidence that SOME such mechanism is at work. That is an exact inversion of the method. They used theory (their dissatisfaction with available theories) to dismiss evidence, but science is defined by the dominance of evidence over theory. When there is a conflict, it is theory that is supposed to give way, not evidence. They were engaged in pure, definitional, anti-science.

    That was apparently a bridge too far for some of the authors who decided (perhaps at my prompting) to acknowledge the very substantial evidence that SOME such mechanism must be at work. It doesn’t matter whether or not we understand the mechaism Zeke, we cannot ignore the evidence, and acknowledging that basic requirement is indeed a game changer.

  113. Leo Smith says:

    All links broken. Looks like the server is in terminal overload.
    I’ll try again tomorrow

  114. A.D. Everard says:

    Antwerpenaar says:
    December 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    Usual self-serving claptrap. I’m a European taxpayer, and I didn’t actually want the report early – I wanted it issued in a controlled fashion, properly presented. But then we Europeans don’t matter, do we? And besides, this Alec Rawls guy has made his name by climbing over the backs of all the other team members, so that’s OK then.

    *

    I take it someone dragged you in by the ear, sat you down in front of your computer, logged into Anthony’s site for you and forced you to hit the “continue reading” link. Get over it. You don’t have to look if you don’t want to see. As for Alec “climbing over the backs of all the other team members,” what’s the problem? Was this supposed to be a secret? From the very taxpayers who pay for the report? How has he done any other “team members” a disservice?Way I look at it, Alec has given them a great incentive to stay honest. Is that wrong?

  115. Anthony Watts says:

    People are working on a better document server, will post new links when available

  116. Alec Rawls says:

    Dana Nuccitelli again displays his confusion:

    if solar magnetic field isn’t increasing right now, it’s not going to deflect more GCRs, which means there won’t be less cloud seeding (though there’s no concrete evidence GCRs successfully seed clouds anyway, as Zeke has noted), which means there won’t be more GCR-induced warming.

    There doesn’t have to be an ever increasing amount of deflection of GCR in order to get continued warming. When solar activity is high and (under the GCR-cloud theory) cloud cover is low, a high amount of solar radiation reaches the oceans unblocked by clouds, where it penetrates and warms the upper ocean layer. For however long this persists on the time scale of decades to centuries the next deeper ocean layer will be slowly warmed by the warmed up top layer. That will decrease the temperature diffrerential between the top and intermediate ocean layers, which will decrease the rate of heat transfer from the upper to the intermediate layers, causing the upper layer to continue to warm. Dana: is all explained in the link I cited for you about Isaac Held’s 2-box model of ocean equilibration. Check it out.

  117. Abitbol says:

    I’m European taxpayer too and I’m happy about Alec’s job. IPPC reports “issued in a controlled fashion, properly presented.” give me a break… Some are too accustomed to Pravda, what a pity.

  118. S Green says:

    How can it be claimed this is game-changing when the report is quite clear that the Sun cannot explain the observed warming?

    Exaggeration much?

  119. Manfred says:

    Richard Treadgold says: December 13, 2012 at 12:23 pm
    “Even politicians should understand this gripping story.”

    Naïve methinks? The career politician/bureaucrat never actually ‘understand’ anything save their own incipient demise from office. No, instead – force feed this to the MSM media; remind the politicians that they may/may not be elected; drive a public challenge of solar-denier climate atmospheric scientists.

  120. kramer says:

    Day By Day says:
    December 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    Thank you for this. Very Important and I hope MSM–someone representing MSM picks this up.

    “HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.”

    “Deep breath.”

    “HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHA.”

  121. hippo says:

    Link to the entire set of documents, as single RAR archive:
    http://www.filedropper.com/wwwstopgreensuicidecom

    Hope this works,

  122. hippo says:

    It works for me at 250 kb/s.

    Greetings

    Hippo

  123. davidmhoffer says:

    I started with Chapter 11. So far I’ve read 5 of 129 pages. The language is so convoluted that I cannot figure out what half the paragraphs even mean. AR4 was written in the language of misdirection and obfuscation. This is written in gibberish.

  124. markx says:

    In summary – the IPCC have previously based this whole issue on the proposed CO2/H20 forcing, and simply ignored the likelihood of any solar forcing mechanism.

    Good to see them opening their minds a bit . (or should I say, good to see someone forcing open their minds?)

  125. markx says:

    S Green : December 13, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    says: “…..How can it be claimed this is game-changing when the report is quite clear that the Sun cannot explain the observed warming?….”

    Simply put, they are saying that the possible solar forcing mechanism is not yet fully understood, so they prefer the proposed “forcing by CO2 driving water vapour levels (the major GHG) in the atmosphere”.
    Another mechanism which is not yet fully understood.

  126. pat says:

    bravo alec -

    here comes the sun….

  127. cui bono says:

    Well done Alec. No more “science behind closed doors”, or last-minute rewrites of the ‘executive summary’. Bravo!

  128. cui bono says:

    Oh, and also thanks to Dana Nuccitelli for braving the lion’s den. And Anthony and the mods for letting his comments stand – unlike some sites where Dana usually posts.

  129. crosspatch says:

    Should be on BitTorrent by now, no?

  130. davidmhoffer says:

    I’m going to have to stop reading Ch11 because it is just making me angry. The manipulation and deception is beyond belief. In between the paragraphs so convoluted that they are meaningless, there are outrageous gems such as this one:

    “It is virtually certain that globally-averaged surface and upper ocean (top 700m) temperatures averaged over 2016–2035 will be warmer than those averaged over 1986–2005.”

    WELL DUH!

    Since it is already warmer NOW than it was over the average of 1986 to 2005, the temperature could flat line from now to 2035 and that would still be true! In fact, the temperature could DECLINE from now until 2035 and that might still be true.

    Notice also that they cleverly left a gap between the end of one period (2005) and the beginning of the next period (2016)? Eliminates the falling temps we’ve seen since 2005 until now! They’re hoping that their precious warming resumes by 2016 and this cooling period is then excluded from the data that would support the statement!

    I’m not even done the first 5 pages and I’ve shouted b*llsh*t out loud a dozen times already.

  131. hippo says:

    @Crosspatch:

    Be my guest.?

  132. JazzyT says:

    Alec Rawls says:
    December 13, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    Dana: is all explained in the link I cited for you about Isaac Held’s 2-box model of ocean equilibration. Check it out.

    Alec, your criticism of Isaac Held’s work was meaningless, because you completely missed the point of his 2-box model. It was never intended for predicting anything, it was only a way to interpret the actual predictions of real models, so the criticism of it as a predictive model is totally irrelevant, as I explained on that thread, more gently, at November 16, 2012 at 11:15 pm.

    The whole issue of heat diffusing from the surface to the deep ocean is a boundary value problem, in which values at each boundary (the heat input at the top, and the temperature of the deep ocean) are fixed, and used to calculate what happens in between. Modeling this as one box is a gross oversimplification, as is modeling two boxes. You really need a large, or infinite number of boxes to see what’s going on. But by proposing a second box below the first one, you increased the distance from the first bounday (surface) to the second (deep ocean). This is a more-literal-than-usual case of moving the goalposts. If you wanted two boxes, you should have broken the first one in two, for smaller boxes, but you just added another, shoving the vague boundary of the deep ocean farther down. Accordingly, your criticism is not only irrelevant but totally specious as well.

    If you want to find out what happens in the idealized case with heat transfer through a medium, that’s been worked out by mechanical engineers. You can find it by googling “semi-infinite solid heat conduction” Two such results are:

    http://ecourses.vtu.ac.in/nptel/courses/Webcourse-contents/IIT%20Bombay/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%204/main/4.5.html
    http://books.google.com/books?id=ERtpN94lCOsC&pg=PA406&lpg=PA406&dq=semi+infinite+solid+heat+conduction&source=bl&ots=wvGzxHS_G2&sig=wUuWPRsNSPzQu8lefd5D3KIGYv8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_YfKUJqSB4eCjAK_hIAY&sqi=2&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=semi%20infinite%20solid%20heat%20conduction&f=false

    These show the temperature as a function of time to be given by the error function, which you get by integrating a normal distribution from time zero to time t. Since the surface and deep ocean start at very different temperatures, and you only change surface heating by a small percentage, you actually would have a starting time that was pretty far out on the error function curve. Additionally, there’s a tiny correcton for the fact that the ocean surface doesn’t warm instantaneously. But these pale in comparison to the fact that the ocean has currents, horizontal and vertical, with the heat transfer input varying seasonally and with wind and cloud cover. No one-dimensional model will cover these, whether with one box, two boxes, or an infinite number of small boxes. But none of this matters because the only purpose of the model was, if possible, to boil down the actual predictions of a Real Model to a single number, just to understand, overall, the effects of increased solar forcing. The one-box model gives a summary statistic, nothing more. Held showed that this worked, and gave a summary statistic that says a lot about the output of the Real Model. That’s all that was asked of the one-box model, and it worked.

    I myself would be very careful about proposing new methods, or criticising someone elses, in economics, because it’s not my thing. Similarly, it’s not a good idea to send an economist to do a physicist’s job.

  133. theduke says:

    Alec Rawls wrote:

    Doug Allen seems to be right. Apparently Obama has not actually renewed his push for carbon taxes. I was misled by the title of the article: “Exxon backs Obama plan to impose climate change fees.” I should have written that Obama is being pushed to have another go at carbon taxes.

    Ditto for my bit about the Obama delegation to COP18 in Doha claiming Sandy was caused by global warming. I knew Obama’s campaign had linked Sandy to global warming so I assumed the title “Doha delegation using hurricane Sandy as a call to action,” was about the U.S. delegation. My bad.

    No need to apologize, Alec. Doug Allen is nitpicking. Tell him to read the Democrat platform. Obama is merely a figurehead who is forced to act as a neutral actor because he is president of ALL the people. That’s why you can find quotes that put him on both sides of every issue. It’s no secret where his sympathies lie. They lie with those who contribute millions to his campaign, i.e. those rich Democrats who have been proselytized by the green lobby and who share views with various radical green NGOs. Which is not to suggest OBama’s been bought. He’s convinced by the evidence because he’s only seen the evidence that has been cherry-picked for his benefit. He doesn’t have the time to analyze the issue. He’s too busy counting the money, which got him elected.

    The activist wing of the Democrat Party has been captured by the lunatic green fringe. They would pass carbon taxes gleefully if they had the chance. They would attribute every instance of extreme weather to AGW (or, as it should now be labeled, ACC –Anthropogenic-forced Climate Change) if they had the chance. They believe that the more government, the more regulation, the more they can control economic liberty, the better.

    It’s who they are. It’s all based on what they can get away at any given moment.

    The good news is that people are waking up because courageous individuals such as yourself are lifting the veil.

  134. davidmhoffer says:

    Are they kidding me?

    “There is high confidence that baseline surface ozone (O3) will change over the 21st century, although projections across the RCP, SRES, and alternative scenarios for different regions range from –4 to +5 ppb by 2030 and –14 to +15 ppb by 2100.”

    They’re highly certain it will change? Wel DUH! so am I! What idiot would be certain that it would NOT change? They’re measuring it in ppb! Then they have the audacity to provide a range of projections that go in opposite directions and average to…. ALMOST ZERO!

    In other words, they’re certain things will change, they just have NO CLUE IN WHAT DIRECTION.

    Are they not embarrassed to be associated with this document? I know I would be.

  135. krischel says:

    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:b7d1530b9d830f9ff5de6cb77c7f15d1b0a374cc&dn=IPCCAR5&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80

    Trying to seed, not sure if I got it setup right, but people can try.

    UPDATE - Newer link with summary -ModE:

    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3f31ecb2a557732ea8d42e14b87aca7efb5dbcc7&dn=IPCCAR5&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.cc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80

  136. Alec Rawls says:

    JazzyT: I am aware that Held did not design his two-box model to be applied to the solar-warming question where there is a steady high level of forcing for 50+ years. I noted that in my post. But when I put the solar question to him he DID apply his two-box model to it, with utterly bogus consequences.

    Indeed, a many thousand box model (the GCMs) would be better. The “consensus” ought to be GCM-testing AR5′s repeated claims that a continued high level of enhanced solar forcing would not cause continued warming, but they haven’t, and the reason is obvious. They know it would not give the results they are claiming. OF COURSE a continued high level of forcing will cause continued warming, and my comparison of Held’s 2-box model to a simple 3-box model is perfectly adequate to explain why.

  137. commieBob says:

    Day By Day says:
    December 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    Thank you for this. Very Important and I hope MSM–someone representing MSM picks this up.

    Good news, ABC News had this three days ago.

    commieBob says:
    December 10, 2012 at 10:00 am

    Good news! It looks like the IPCC is going to back away from global warming hysteria. Slashdot has a story,
    http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/12/10/0320239/draft-of-ipcc-2013-report-already-circulating
    that links to an ABC News story, http://abcnews.go.com/International/science-hone-climate-change-warnings/story?id=17906408#.UMVJntHQQSk
    No wonder the greenies are dismayed. The raison d’etre for all these climate conferences is OFFICIALLY going away.

  138. clipe says:

    All of this, of course, is a tempest in a teapot. The fact remains that we’ve been told the IPCC is a collection of the world’s top scientists and best experts. Yet Lisa Alexander, who helped write the 2001 and the 2007 climate bible, didn’t even earn her PhD until 2009.

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/11/04/when-the-ipcc-makes-an-error-is-it-the-journalists-fault/

    Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
    3
    4 Summary for Policymakers
    5
    6 Drafting Authors: Lisa Alexander (Australia),

  139. michael hart says:

    GCR=Galactic Cosmic Rays?
    Not all readers are familiar with all acronyms.

  140. zootcadillac says:

    Ok, a few people asking about a torrent.

    I’ve collected the PDFs andI have just lumped them into a zip file which you will need to extract. I may make them into an ebook later if there is any interest in a kindle/mobi version etc.

    Bear with me. I think this works but I have no knowledge of creating public torrents which are not managed via a private tracker so even figuring out how to get the torrent to you seems a little awkward.

    http://www.filedropper.com/ipccar5wg1draftzip

    hopefully that has created a link where you can download the torrent. Open the torrent in the bit torrent client of your choice.

    I am not personally holding or sharing any of the data that the torrent points to and I see the work as already in the public domain.

  141. krischel says:

    @zootcadillac: I’m seeding at this magnet link:

    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:b7d1530b9d830f9ff5de6cb77c7f15d1b0a374cc&dn=IPCCAR5&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80

    UPDATE: Newer link with summary -ModE:

    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3f31ecb2a557732ea8d42e14b87aca7efb5dbcc7&dn=IPCCAR5&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.cc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80

    It’s a folder with each individual PDF in it.

    If you have a torrent client like Transmission, you should be able to open up that magnet URL and start downloading.

    MODS – if there’s a way to put “pre” tags around that URL it might be easier for people to copy.
    REPLY: Tried, but bled off the screen – Anthony

  142. OssQss says:

    Oh my, and a big WOW!

    The IPCC will not take this lightly…..

    Perhaps we could ask them how they like people who expose truth Now?

    Next up,,,,, the Climategate password?

  143. apachewhoknows says:

    Call in some of the high tech ones from like Los Alamos Lab, the nut job greenies who work there would grind a gear in reverse to hide the facts.

  144. apachewhoknows says:

    Whats for Christmas this year,,, Climategate Password for all of U.S..

  145. apachewhoknows says:

    Anthoney,

    Make sure the Congressman Ralph Halls office gets this thread as well as the lead people on his House Science Committee.

  146. Jon B. says:

    @krischel:
    magnet works, will leave to seed for a while

  147. RobertInAz says:

    Irrespective of the comments about solar forcing, at the top of SPM-8 we find:

    There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance

  148. Jolly Roger says:

    Thanks for all your hard work

  149. Alex says:

    Somebody needs to archive real climate so future generations can see how they pushed their agenda with hardly any evidence. Otherwise it will be like when they backed down from.the ice age scare.

  150. gallopingcamel says:

    The last time something like this happened I downloaded one of the AR5 ZOD files thinking that I could download the rest at my leisure. The files promptly disappeared and it took weeks to gather them up from other members of the public. I retrieved seven WG1 chapters and twelve WG2 chapters
    http://www.gallopingcamel.info/IPCC.htm

    This time around I am going to be much more diligent. I will emulate the Fool in Shakespeare’s 12th Night (Act 3, Scene 1):
    “And, like the haggard, check at every feather that comes before his eye.”

  151. James says:

    Just because TSI can’t explain GCR, doesn’t mean TSI isn’t explaining Solar Forcing, nor does it say that GCR is now a forcing.

  152. AB says:

    Great exposure to the sunlight of truth.

  153. Harry van Loon says:

    Finally, and earlier than I expected.

  154. Harry van Loon says:

    But it will take take time to convince the faithful.

  155. John@EF says:

    Is your solar bombshell anything different than described by Dr. Alley’s during his 2010 congressional testimony, at the 4 minute mark of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA

    Seems likely that this is nothing new and has been openly discussed in the past.

  156. MattK says:

    Torrent worked fine and I will continue to seed.
    I am no statistician, but can someone explain how the three middle columns in Table 2.7 of Chapter 5 for the HadCrut4 data work ? How can two identical sequential trends not equal the total trend for the same data set, if the individual trends just happen to be identical ?
    Hadcrut4 1901-2011 1901-1950 1951-2011
    0.075 .107 .107

    i.e. How can 1901 to 2011 not equal .107 ?
    Thanks.

  157. Paul Vaughan says:

    Caution for sober, sensible, careful parties: What is conventionally referred to as “GCR” is being misinterpreted. It will be many years before this will be widely recognized. What has already been observed cannot and will not be changed by CERN CLOUD experiments. Beware the potential for severe obfuscation by parties who do not understand observed aggregate constraints based on the laws of large numbers and conservation of angular momentum. If I had to gamble that there might emerge one truly trustworthy North American agency on this file, I would put my money on NASA JPL. The potential for politically coerced corruption is staggering, so I suggest we keep a vigilant watch to help safeguard them from interference.

  158. Matthew R Marler says:

    Many thanks to hippo. The download was painless.

  159. MattK says:

    PS: The discussion on Fig 1.5 of Chapter 1, Page 40, seems a bit light, and it will be interesting to see exactly where the error bars end up for the 2012 data, but at least the observed data vs. the models in presented. The text however seems to underplay the lack of clear explanation for the difference between prior models and observation.

  160. Bob K. says:

    “Magnet” works, I am seeding it right now.
    If you have Vuze, it is simple to download:
    1) In the text below, select (ie highlight) text BETWEEN >>> and << Open –> Torrent File…, then click on the button “Add From Clipboard”, and download should start immediately.
    (NB: “Policy for Policymakers” is missing, all the other files are ok.)

    >>>magnet:?xt=urn:btih:b7d1530b9d830f9ff5de6cb77c7f15d1b0a374cc&dn=IPCCAR5&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80

    <<<
    Good luck.

    UPDATE: Newer link with summary – ModE:

    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3f31ecb2a557732ea8d42e14b87aca7efb5dbcc7&dn=IPCCAR5&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.cc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80

  161. Bob K. says:

    Got corrupted… should have read:
    1) In the text below, select (ie highlight) text BETWEEN >>> and << Open –> Torrent File…, then click on the button “Add From Clipboard”, and download should start immediately.

  162. Bob K. says:

    The three “less” signs were reduced to two, and text that immediately followed was dropped:
    2) Start Vuze, click File –> Open –> Torrent File…, then click on the button “Add from Clipboard”…
    Sorry about the mess.
    Would be nice to have a ‘preview’ available before submitting comments methink…

  163. kim says:

    The Southern Ocean
    Salutes the Harry van Loon.
    Put her Draught, circled.
    ==============

  164. Energetic says:

    A Big Thank You to krischel and zootcadillac for setting up the torrent. The downlaod took just 4 minutes ;)

    btw: I too am a taxpayer who is living in Germany, where everyone, even the poorest, have to pay subsidies for the solar panels and wind turbines. And i am happy that someone is picking up the work that our four “democratic powers” simply ignore: expose, reveal, explain everything so that people can decide. How someone can object that is beyond me…

    So thanlk you Alec Rawls.

  165. Alec Rawls says:

    “Seems likely that this (enhanced solar forcing) is nothing new and has been openly discussed in the past.”

    But never admitted to by the IPCC. In AR3 and AR4 only considered and dismissed a few possible mechanisms. This is the first time they have acknowledged the evidence that SOME such mechanism seems to be at work, yet all of their conclusions are still based on the assumption that the only solar forcing is TSI.

  166. Joe Prins says:

    Pages 14-61 and 62.
    Some excerpts copied for your info:
    Because of a dearth (line 42) of quality precipitation data, it is very difficult to assess whether precipitation trends over the past few decades in the Arctic drainage areas also show an increase (ACIA, 2005). However, river gauge observations do show consistent runoff increases of approximately 10% in rivers draining into the Arctic since about the mid-20th century (Richter-Menge and Overland, 2009). This could be driven partly by the indirect effects of warming, including permafrost and snow melt (Section 2.5.2) in addition to undetected precipitation increases. The Arctic has of course also experienced a dramatic and well-documented deline in sea ice…
    Next:
    CMIP5 models (line19) Increasing precipitation is another important manifestation of Arctic climate change. The robustly project increased moisture flux convergence and precipitation in the pan-Arctic region over the 21st century, as did their AR4 counterparts (Kattsov et al., 2007; Rawlins et al., 2010
    Then we get:
    since nearly all models project a large precipitation increase rising above the variability year-round, it is likely the pan-Arctic region will experience a statistically-significant increase in precipitation by mid-century.
    Finally, there is this:
    In summary, there is high confidence that future temperature evolution of Arctic climate on decadal time scales and longer will likely continue to be dominated by the signals of anthropogenic climate change. It is likely the pan-Arctic region will experience a significant increase in precipitation by mid-century. There is high confidence that Arctic sea ice anomalies exhibit substantial interannual variability, so that ice loss or gain in any particular year cannot be taken as an indication or absence of a long-term trend due to anthropogenic forcing.
    Comment: We have absolutely not enough data to discuss precipitation. However all computer models show increases. Therefore there will be more precipitation. And although the arctic has experienced a dramatic loss of sea ice in summary we cannot say anything anthropogenic about that, either. And this qualifies and the best that scientists can do? I want my tax dollars back.

  167. AndyG55 says:

    bit torrent link works well, quite quick.

    I’ll leave my computer seeding overnight, but I have slow upload speed.

  168. Total Mass Retain says:

    Perhaps the author should dust off his undergraduate thermodynamics textbooks and look up the term “thermal equilibrium”. He might then realise that comparing the Sun-Earth system with a pot heating on a stove is a rather stupid comparison. That rather undermines his credibility in interpreting this draft report.

  169. E.M.Smith says:

    Thank you Alec. Well said, and well done sir.

    To quote one of my favorite lines: “You can’t stop the signal”…

    Bittorrent has made my copy in ‘no time flat’.. which means that at this point it’s impossible to stop. Entire government agencies have tried to stop folks shoveling things around, that they didn’t like being shoveled, and Bittorrent just adapts… ( There are even “Darknet” variations on it… so once even one person with such a knowing has a copy, well… )

    It would be nice to publish an “MD5″ hash for the package, so that folks can make sure it wasn’t changed by any agent along the way…

  170. JazzyT says:

    First off, on the topic at hand: I’ve tended to be more interested in the scientific assessments than in the summaries. Not that the latter are unimportant; I’ve just left it to others to worry about them. But I’ll look forward to seeing what this trove has to offer.

    Regarding Isaac Helds’s 3-box model (I called this a 2-box model above, regarding the deep ocean as a “boundary” rather than another box):

    Alec Rawls says:
    December 13, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    But when I put the solar question to him he DID apply his two-box model to it, with utterly bogus consequences.

    It really looks like you gave a long account of heat transfer, including two references to the 2-box model, and he replied only, “It sounds like you understand.” You seem to have read too much into that.

    Indeed, a many thousand box model (the GCMs) would be better.

    He used them. His simple models all take their parameters from GCMs, especially GFDL’s global climate model, CM2.1. For setting a time lag, he compared his simple models to the GCM. In his blog post #3, which you linked, he shows that 4 years works better than 0 years for a 1-box model. If 30, 50, or 100 years worked better, he would have used that. (Here’s the link to blog post #3:
    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2011/03/05/2-linearity-of-the-forced-response/ )
    Held’s answer to the second comment in this post says, in his own words, what he’s trying to do:

    Modeling a model does seem like a strange thing to do! But I would argue that it is sometimes useful to take a “theoretical stance”, and try to understand ones theory/model. This understanding must translate eventually into more satisfying confrontations with data if it to make a contribution to science, but this can be a multi-step process…
    Fitting simple models to a GCM should make it easier to criitique the GCM (or at least that aspect of the GCM that is being fit in this way) since one can critique the simple model instead. But, as you say, this fit in itself says nothing directly about nature.

    In his blog post #6, which you also linked, in his answer to the first comment, he starts by saying, “I wouldn’t take this two-box model that seriously. I use it here because it is the simplest model that interpolates between the short time limit in which the heat uptake is proportional to the temperature perturbation and the long time limit in which the heat uptake decays to zero. There are a lot of time scales involved in the oceanic adjustment…”

    The “consensus” ought to be GCM-testing AR5′s repeated claims that a continued high level of enhanced solar forcing would not cause continued warming…

    On Google Scholar, searching “gcm increased long-term solar” gave me almost 29,000 hits. I’m sure many of the later ones are less relevant, but on the first two pages, they generally looked like studies dealing with the effects of a long-term increase (or in some cases, decrease) in solar irradiance. Those modeling people model everything; that’s what keeps them busy and off the streets.

    OF COURSE a continued high level of forcing will cause continued warming, and my comparison of Held’s 2-box model to a simple 3-box model is perfectly adequate to explain why.

    But all you did with the 3-box model was to think of it. You seemed to have a lot of assumptions about how it would work. If the heat transfer between box 1 and box 2 were very slow (as you expect at the boundary between well-mixed surface water and deeper water) then it would make very little difference. If you had box 2 as part of the well-mixed layer, taking heat rapidly from it, but giving it up slowly to deeper waters–again, very little difference. And those differences would just about disappear when you fit the simple model to the GCM. Just because you can think of a model doesn’t really tell you anything, especially for a very artificial model like these. There may be an exception if you already know the system very well, e.g., if you already know the answer. Now, if you can put realistic numbers on it and run it, and check it against known data, you might get something. But just thinking of the model, and thinking about it, doesn’t give you an answer.

    If a significant 50-year response to solar forcing was in the system, the GCMs would probably have shown it, although the usual cautions about any model apply. If they didn’t show a 50-year response, a 3-compartment model wouldn’t help. Especially one that hasn’t been tried.

  171. son of mulder says:

    DeSmogblog says “practically anyone can register for these positions using an online form. Nobody appoints “expert reviewers”.

    How can it be a leak if “practically anyone” can register as a reviewer? All he’s done is cut out some bureaucracy.

  172. Well done Alex, BT took only a minute to download. BitTorrent showed clients in US (mainly) but also Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Denmark and Holland (and me of course in UK) -.It’s gone global.

  173. E.M.Smith says:

    @AndyG55:

    Part of the beauty of “torrents” is that it is a parallel transfer. So it doesn’t matter if your uplink is slow. If there are 1000 folks with just 5 kB uplinks, then a person doing a download can theoretically get 5 MB of download shoved at them. Typically the protocol allots the traffic so that the workload is “spread around” with faster links doing a bit more of the work; but remember that this was designed for things like “first night release” of a popular music album. Think a million folks all wanting to download…

    So even WHILE doing the download, each person starts to “share”. In that way, a given 1 kB block can leave the first server to one party, and then start a geometric progression of expansion all on its own as each person who gets that block, shares with anyone who needs it. In this way, the originating sever really would only need to share each block once, with any one party, and from that moment on everyone can get a whole copy just by swapping blocks with each other. (In practice, the first half dozen folks get large batches of the file, usually not overlapping, and then the later folks to arrive start getting chunks from each of them and from the main server. So rapidly there are a few 100% copy ‘seeds”…)

    It’s really a rather elegant and effective method…

    So don’t be dissuaded from leaving a 100% “seed” up just because you are on a slow link. I have about a dozen files I seed where I’m the only guy still serving up that (ancient) Linux release. Every so often someone shows up to get a copy. (One guy in Romania took 3 days to download… his link was even slower than mine ;-) I presume he had an old slow computer and that was why he wanted the old fast small Linux …) The whole idea is that even folks on an old modem based dial up line can be part of the “swarm” sharing little 1 kb blocks with each other…

    FWIW, now that I have a copy, I’ll be moving it over to my “always on” torrent server for old Linux releases… So while the machine I have it on now will be seeding most of the night, eventually I’ll burn a copy to more durable media and put it on the industrial box… Usually a ‘torrent’ has a big rush up front, but a few weeks later interest dies down and ‘seeds’ thin out. Having it just laying around on an old box as a torrent archive helps the guy who shows up in 2 months and wants a copy, but finds everyone else as ‘moved on’… So “seeding now” is important, but it can also be important to “seed later too”… at least for a couple of folks…

    @Alec Rawls:

    There is a minor ‘black art’ to using “odd” characters in URLs. Usually you can just look up the unicode value and stick that in where the ‘odd’ character sits. These typically start with an & and then end with a semi-colon. In between in a number (sometimes with an x in it for ‘hex’ numbers).

    The usual one that trips folks up a period, but it can be most any special characters. At this site you get a nice table for all the options. I usually just do a web search on “Unicode” and whatever the special character is, then find this site name in the list. So “Unicode plus sign” will pull it up, or something like it.

    http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2b/index.htm

    Lets us know that the + value is unicode 43 (look down to the long table of ‘encodings’ and pick out the one named “HTML”… there is also a “HTML entry (hex)” you could use of x2b if you are a hex kind of guy ;-)

    You would put in the leading & and trailing ; like this:

    &#043;

    How to print out THAT example, without letting WordPress steal it and put in an “+” in that space, is an ‘excercise for the student’ ;-)

    Some, like the ampersand, have a text (name) call as well:

    http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/26/index.htm

    tells us it is “amp” so you could put in a line &amp; to get one. (Though wordpress looks like it doesn’t steal an & other programs might).

    That page has a search box up top for finding other interesting characters.

    What all this means is that you have the choice of taking the + out of the pdf name, or putting the &#043; into the URL text.

    @Don B:

    Thanks! Interesting paper…

    @Rob W:

    I’m coming to the conclusion it takes silver nails, delivered at high speed… (and perhaps with a cross, garlic, and holy water in hand… a ‘weir vampire’? )

    @Janf20:

    Look at how “Link TV” works. Very Islam friendly and very left biased and pro-AGW. I suspect oil money funds it. Why? Coal is their major competitor on the oil front. Anything that weakens the industrial west is a ‘feature’ to both “world Socialism” and Islam… At least, that’s the thesis I would investigate. (No, no evidence, just that’s the way I’d assemble a search path for your proposed scenario.)

    @RobK:

    WordPress likes to “steal” leading angle brackets that look like they might be a HTML marker, so you need to use the same Unicode Encoding ‘trick’ as above.

    The open angle bracket:
    http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/3008/index.htm

    #12296;

    &#12296;

    giving a 〈

    The close angle bracket:
    http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/3009/index.htm

    #12297

    &#12297;

    giveing a 〉

    (putting both in just in case I don’t get the meta-meta characters right to prevent ‘stealing’ them ;-)

  174. richard says:

    just took a look over at Skeptical science,

    “So why would the latest IPCC report contradict these studies when its purpose is to summarize the latest and greatest scientific research? The answer is simple — it doesn’t. Rawls has completely misrepresented the IPCC report”

  175. Peak Warming Man says:

    Professor Steve Sherwood, the director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, was the lead author of the chapter in question.
    He says the idea that the chapter he authored confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming is “ridiculous”.

    “I’m sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite – that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible,” he told PM.

    “What it shows is that we looked at this. We look at everything.

    “The IPCC has a very comprehensive process where we try to look at all the influences on climate and so we looked at this one.”

    Professor Sherwood says research has effectively disproved the idea that sunspots are more responsible for global warming than human activity.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-14/ipcc-draft-climate-report-leaked/4429036?WT.svl=news0

    I think you owe Professor Sherwood an apology.

  176. GabrielHBay says:

    The bit-torrent version took mere minutes to download.. fast connection! C’mon people.. get with technology!

  177. Otter says:

    richard says:
    just took a look over at Skeptical science,

    “So why would the latest IPCC report contradict these studies when its purpose is to summarize the latest and greatest scientific research? The answer is simple — it doesn’t. Rawls has completely misrepresented the IPCC report”

    ——-

    The IPCC regularly mis-represents its’ own report- I will point to their conclusions about monsoons in S America, Africa and India, where their own science said it would become spotty in those regions… but they talk to the media about increased precip, and more flooding!

    Alec is only giving Thinking people a chance to judge for themselves!

  178. Green Sand says:

    “Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked IPCC report”
    Climate sceptics’ claims that UN climate science panel’s AR5 report show the sun is causing global warming don’t stack up.
    • Dana Nuccitelli for Skeptical Science, part of the Guardian Environment Network
    • guardian.co.uk, Friday 14 December 2012 10.06 GMT ”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/global-warming-sun-leaked-ipcc-report?INTCMP=SRCH

    “Skeptical Science, part of the Guardian Environment Network”

    A reflection of the present standard of the UK MSM journalism or cut and paste ism!

  179. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    For anyone who is interested, here is the complete text of the section on GCR’s. Not exactly glowing endorsement of their role.

    Alex. How much of all of this altered between the two versions.?
    Or is the para you highlighted enough to overturn all the rest?

    7.4.5 Impact of Cosmic Rays on Aerosols and Clouds
    43
    44 High solar acti0vity leads to variations in the strength and three-dimensional structure of the heliosphere,
    45 which reduces the flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) impinging upon the Earth’s atmosphere by increasing
    46 the deflection of low energy GCR. As GCR is the primary source of atmospheric ionization, it has been
    47 suggested that GCR may act to amplify relative small variations in solar activity into climatologically
    48 significant effects (Ney, 1959), via a hypothesised relationship between ionization and cloudiness (e.g.,
    49 Dickinson, 1975; Kirkby, 2007). There have been many studies aiming to test this hypothesis since AR4,
    50 which fall in two categories: i) studies that seek to establish a causal relationship between cosmic rays and
    51 aerosols/clouds by looking at correlations between the two quantities on timescales of days to decades, and
    52 ii) studies that test through observations or modelling one of the physical mechanisms that have been put
    53 forward. We assess these two categories of studies in the next two sections.
    54
    55 7.4.5.1 Correlations Between Cosmic Rays and Properties of Aerosols and Clouds
    56
    Order Draft Chapter 7 IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report
    Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 7-44 Total pages: 139

    1 Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope 1 archives and some
    2 aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing
    3 from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the
    4 existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed
    5 relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties. Such relationships have focused on decadal
    6 variations in GCR induced by the 11-year solar cycle, shorter variations associated with the quasi-periodic
    7 oscillation in solar activity centred on 1.68 years or sudden and large variations known as Forbush decrease
    8 events. It should be noted that GCR co-vary with other solar parameters such as solar and UV irradiance,
    9 which makes any attribution of cloud changes to GCR problematic (Laken et al., 2011).
    10
    11 Some studies have shown co-variation between GCR and low-level cloud cover using global satellite data
    12 over periods of typically 5–10 years (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000; Pallé Bagó and Butler, 2000). Such
    13 correlations have not proved to be robust when extending the time period under consideration (Agee et al.,
    14 2012), restricting the analysis to particular cloud types (Kernthaler et al., 1999) or locations (Udelhofen and
    15 Cess, 2001; Usoskin and Kovaltsov, 2008). The purported correlations have also been attributed to ENSO
    16 variability (Farrar, 2000; Laken et al., 2012) and artefacts of the satellite data cannot be ruled out (Pallé,
    17 2005). Statistically significant, but weak, correlations between diffuse fraction and cosmic rays have been
    18 found at some locations in the UK over the 1951 to 2000 period (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006). Harrison
    19 (2008) also found a unique 1.68-year periodicity in surface radiation for two different UK sites between
    20 1978 and 1990, potentially indicative of a cosmic ray effect. Svensmark et al. (2009) found large global
    21 reductions in the aerosol Ångström exponent from AERONET, liquid water path from SSM/I, and cloud
    22 cover from MODIS and ISCCP after large Forbush decreases, but these results were not corroborated by
    23 other studies who found no statistically significant links between GCR and clouds at the global scale
    24 (Čalogović et al., 2010; Kristjánsson et al., 2008; Laken and Čalogović, 2011). Although some studies found
    25 small but significant positive correlations between GCR and high- and mid-altitude clouds (Laken et al.,
    26 2010; Rohs et al., 2010), these variations were very weak, and the results were highly sensitive to how the
    27 Forbush events were selected and composited (Laken et al., 2009).
    28
    29 7.4.5.2 Physical Mechanisms Linking Cosmic Rays to Cloudiness
    30
    31 The most widely studied mechanism proposed to explain the possible link between GCR and cloudiness is
    32 the “ion-aerosol clear air” mechanism, in which atmospheric ions produced by GCR facilitate aerosol
    33 nucleation and growth ultimately impacting CCN concentrations and cloud properties (Carslaw et al., 2002;
    34 Usoskin and Kovaltsov, 2008). The variability of atmospheric ionization rates due to GCR changes can be
    35 considered relatively well quantified (Bazilevskaya et al., 2008), whereas resulting changes in aerosol
    36 nucleation rates are very poorly known (Enghoff and Svensmark, 2008; Kazil et al., 2008). The Cosmics
    37 Leaving OUtdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment at CERN indicates that GCR-induced ionization enhances
    38 water–sulphuric acid nucleation in the middle and upper troposphere, but is very unlikely to give a
    39 significant contribution to nucleation taking place in the continental boundary layer (Kirkby et al., 2011).
    40 Field measurements qualitatively support this view but cannot provide any firm conclusion on the role of
    41 ions due to the scarcity and other limitations of free-troposphere measurements (Arnold, 2006; Mirme et al.,
    42 2010), and due to difficulties in separating GCR-induced nucleation from other nucleation pathways in
    43 continental boundary layers (Hirsikko et al., 2011). If strong enough, the signal from GCR-induced
    44 nucleation should be detectable at the Earth’s surface because a big fraction of CCN in the global boundary
    45 layer is expected to originate from nucleation taking place in the free troposphere (Merikanto et al., 2009).
    46 Based on surface aerosol measurements at one site, Kulmala et al. (2010) found no connection between GCR
    47 and new particle formation or any other aerosol property over a solar cycle (1996–2008). Our understanding
    48 of the “ion-aerosol clear air” mechanism as a whole relies on a few model investigations that simulate GCR
    49 changes over a solar cycle (Kazil et al., 2012; Pierce and Adams, 2009a; Snow-Kropla et al., 2011) or during
    50 strong Forbush decreases (Bondo et al., 2010; Snow-Kropla et al., 2011). Although all model studies found a
    51 detectable connection between GCR variations and either CCN changes or column aerosol properties, the
    52 response appears to be too weak to cause a significant radiative effect because GCR are unable to effectively
    53 raise CCN and droplet concentrations (Kazil et al., 2012).
    54
    55 A second pathway linking GCR to cloudiness has been proposed through the global electric circuit (GEC). A
    56 small direct current is able to flow vertically between the ionosphere (maintained at approximately 250 kV
    57 by thunderstorms and electrified clouds) and the Earth’s surface over fair-weather regions because of GCRSecond
    Order Draft Chapter 7 IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report
    Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 7-44 Total pages: 139
    induced atmospheric ionization. Charges can accumulate at the upper and lower cloud boundaries 1 as a result
    2 of the effective scavenging of ions by cloud droplets (Tinsley, 2000). This creates conductivity gradients at
    3 the cloud edges (Nicoll and Harrison, 2010), and may influence droplet-droplet collision (Khain et al., 2004),
    4 cloud droplet-particle collisions (Tinsley, 2000), and cloud droplet formation processes (Harrison and
    5 Ambaum, 2008). These microphysical effects may potentially influence cloud properties both directly and
    6 indirectly. Although Harrison and Ambaum (2010) observed a small reduction in downward LW radiation
    7 which they associated with variations in surface current density, supporting observations are extremely
    8 limited. Our current understanding of the relationship between cloud properties and the GEC remains very
    9 low, and there is no evidence yet that associated cloud processes could be of climatic significance.
    10
    11 7.4.5.3 Synthesis
    12
    13 Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free
    14 troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too
    15 weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle
    16 in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee
    17 et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major
    18 contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.

  180. Dario from NW Italy says:

    Well done, Alec!!!! Thanks for your efforts!!!!

  181. Jimbo says:

    For those who may attack Alec Rawls for leaking this they should remember this:

    Peter Glieck committed wire fraud and lied to obtain documents and was hailed a hero by some in the press. Also the media loved WikiLeaks. The BBC avoided ClimateGate like the plague until they could no longer avoid it. One man’s leak is another man’s poison.

  182. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    Jimbo

    Peter Glieck didn’t sign a non-disclosure agreement, legally binding himself to not revealing confidential information.

  183. richardscourtney says:

    davidmhoffer:

    I am writing in response to your post at December 13, 2012 at 6:38 pm.

    I hope this leak of the AR5 draft will be important but I fear and anticipate that it will be inconsequential.

    Only the IPCC Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs) are read, cited and quoted by the media, AGW-activists and politicians. And the SPMs are distorted propaganda documents. Importantly, the SPMs are completed first and the Chapter contents of an IPCC Report are amended to agree with their SPM. The amendments do not delete ‘get out clauses’ included as ‘insurance’ which can be cited in later defence of failed ‘projections’ and ‘predictions’. Hence, much rubbish and inconsistency is throughout IPCC Reports.

    The leaked AR5 draft contains important statements on solar effects which seem to be examples of such ‘get out clauses’. These statements will have no importance of any kind unless clearly stated as being important in the published version of the AR5 SPM.

    Chapter contents of IPCC Reports are only read and studied by nerds like me while the SPMs are read, cited and quoted by the media, AGW-activists and politicians.

    Which brings me to your post which induced my response. It says in total

    Are they kidding me?

    “There is high confidence that baseline surface ozone (O3) will change over the 21st century, although projections across the RCP, SRES, and alternative scenarios for different regions range from –4 to +5 ppb by 2030 and –14 to +15 ppb by 2100.”

    They’re highly certain it will change? Wel DUH! so am I! What idiot would be certain that it would NOT change? They’re measuring it in ppb! Then they have the audacity to provide a range of projections that go in opposite directions and average to…. ALMOST ZERO!

    In other words, they’re certain things will change, they just have NO CLUE IN WHAT DIRECTION.

    Are they not embarrassed to be associated with this document? I know I would be.Sign-up now open for expert review of AR5 (second order draft)

    [emphasis added as bolding by me: RSC]

    When the call for AR5 reviewers was announced on WUWT at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/10/sign-up-now-open-for-expert-review-of-ar5-second-order-draft/
    I wrote this post in that thread

    richardscourtney says:
    September 10, 2012 at 11:49 pm

    New Reviewers:

    I have served as IPCC Expert Reviewer but I won’t bother this time.

    It seems that a UN FCCC nation’s agency does not need to nominate Expert Reviewers this time. The US NOAA nominated me as an Expert Reviewer for the AR4 and I accepted the nomination then did the job. But no notice was taken of any of my review comments.

    So, when the IPCC Chairman asked me to review the Synthesis Report I did not bother. And I won’t bother this time: it merely adds to the X number of scientists the IPCC claims were involved in preparation of the Report.

    Richard

    Several people replied with posts saying my decision was wrong.

    I now feel vindicated.
    The AR4 contains nonsense to which I objected but has my name as one of many attached.
    The AR5 is to contain nonsense to which reviewers objected but will have their names attached.

    Richard

  184. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    A few take home comments:

    The variability of atmospheric ionization rates due to GCR changes can be considered relatively well quantified (Bazilevskaya et al., 2008), whereas resulting changes in aerosol nucleation rates are very poorly known (Enghoff and Svensmark, 2008; Kazil et al., 2008).

    Some studies have shown co-variation between GCR and low-level cloud cover using global satellite data over periods of typically 5–10 years (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000; Pallé Bagó and Butler, 2000). Such correlations have not proved to be robust when extending the time period under consideration (Agee et al., 2012), restricting the analysis to particular cloud types (Kernthaler et al., 1999) or locations (Udelhofen and 15 Cess, 2001; Usoskin and Kovaltsov, 2008)

    The purported correlations have also been attributed to ENSO variability (Farrar, 2000; Laken et al., 2012) and artefacts of the satellite data cannot be ruled out (Pallé,2005).

    Svensmark et al. (2009) found large global reductions in the aerosol Ångström exponent from AERONET, liquid water path from SSM/I, and cloud cover from MODIS and ISCCP after large Forbush decreases, but these results were not corroborated by other studies who found no statistically significant links between GCR and clouds at the global scale (Čalogović et al., 2010; Kristjánsson et al., 2008; Laken and Čalogović, 2011)

    The variability of atmospheric ionization rates due to GCR changes can be considered relatively well quantified (Bazilevskaya et al., 2008), whereas resulting changes in aerosol nucleation rates are very poorly known (Enghoff and Svensmark, 2008; Kazil et al., 2008).

    Although all model studies found a detectable connection between GCR variations and either CCN changes or column aerosol properties, the response appears to be too weak to cause a significant radiative effect because GCR are unable to effectively raise CCN and droplet concentrations (Kazil et al., 2012).

    The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.

  185. My Word says:

    Game-changing admission? The lead author of the chapter in question, Professor Steve Sherwood, director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, doesn’t think so. He says the report shows that “a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming is ridiculous.”

    As usual, we get spin and distortions on this blog.

  186. Noelene says:

    Just read this on the ABC(Aus)and I knew where to come for a look.They didn’t name the 2nd well known site,They must not want to give free referrals hehe.
    A draft of the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been leaked on climate sceptic websites.

    The 14-chapter draft report was posted on a US-based blog site called stopgreensuicide and then posted on another site critical of climate science.

    The leaker and other climate sceptics have isolated one section of the draft to suggest that cosmic rays such as those of the Sun may have a greater influence on warming than had been claimed.

    Professor Steve Sherwood, the director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, was the lead author of the chapter in question.

    He says the idea that the chapter he authored confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming is “ridiculous”.

    “I’m sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite – that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible,” he told PM.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-14/ipcc-draft-climate-report-leaked/4429036?WT.svl=news0

  187. mfo says:

    Well done Alex Rawls. Putting the draft into the public domain is just the kind of transparency which Pachauri claims is good for the process:

    “The review process is objective, open and transparent.

    “For the reviews, the Working Group/Task Force Bureaus are required to seek the participation of reviewers encompassing the range of scientific, technical and socio-economic views, expertise, and geographical representation and it is also required to actively undertake to promote and invite as wide a group of experts as possible. Any expert can sign up to review the drafts, making the IPCC report process one of the most open and inclusive in the world of science.”

    “Science thrives on debate and discussion and we in the IPCC welcome the opportunity to engage in debate on the subject of climate change.

    “Given the fact that the AR5 will undoubtedly have a substantial amount of new information, there would be undoubtedly much debate and discussion of the findings that are produced. I would like to emphasize that the whole process of preparation of IPCC Reports is characterized by discussion which takes place within and across author teams and a rigorous process of review which serves the purpose of incorporating diverse points of view at various stages of drafting of the report.”
    http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/climatechange/pages/gateway/voices/template/news_item.jsp?cid=37250

  188. RES says:

    Just had a look at “Skeptical Science, part of the Guardian Environment Network”

    Once again the alarmists denigrate all those that don’t comply with their cherry picking views but then proceed to do exactly that. A case of ‘do as I say and not as I do’! As for some of the posts the less said the better but I hope we can rise above some of the narrow minded vitriol being spouted. In my view once the alarmists descend into name calling they have lost the argument.

    They cannot seem to grasp the simple fact that the Chapter 7 & 8 authors have contradicted each other.

    Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink (except when it is the marines :-))
    RES

  189. jimmi_the_dalek says:

    You may be misinterpreting the report. The longer quote given by Glenn Tamblyn above does not support the idea that the IPCC is saying that GCRs are responsible, and the author of that section of the report states that it has been interpreted incorrectly.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-14/ipcc-draft-climate-report-leaked/4429036

  190. Dale says:

    Wow, the “Climate Response Team” were over this so fast you could feel the wind smash against your face!

    In my experience, if someone moves that fast to counter something, they’re usually trying to hide something.

  191. Thanks Alec, downloaded in minutes 126MB, Only read a few pages in Chapter 7 to check the download worked. Sure is a fuzzy executive summary. I can see that there is a lot of lack of understanding of basics of heat and mass transfer but I need to plough through it a bit more.

  192. Man Bearpig says:

    S Green : December 13, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    says: “…..How can it be claimed this is game-changing when the report is quite clear that the Sun cannot explain the observed warming?….”

    Ok, S..

    Take this very simple equation.

    x+y = z

    If you do not know one of these values it can be calculated by the other. Are you still with this ?

    If you do not know two values, then none of the others can be calculated. They can only be guesses.

    If you have something like a climate where there are more than two unknown variables, then you can not figure out anything.

    There are some books here that may help you.
    http://www.dummies.com/store/Education/Math.html

  193. chinook says:

    Game changing? I would like to think so and always remain optimistic, but that pertains to honest people and since here in the US significant developments like Climategate and fraudulent hockey stick graphs were largely ignored and with our Fed agencies being staffed and directed by the usual suspects, this or other significant developments will be ignored since they have their own agenda’s. The Lisa Jacksons and James Hansens know they can do and get away with just about anything they desire and have the full backing of our President.

  194. Roger Carr says:

    Bob K. (10:21 pm) suggests: “Would be nice to have a ‘preview’ available before submitting comments methink…”

    Download Greasemonkey and use Firefox for WUWT and you have a fully kitted out preview automatically in every comments box, Bob.

  195. Barry Center says:

    Perhaps this is a deliberate strategy by the IPCC ?

    16 years of ‘no warming’ needs to be killed off in some way, and what better way than to claim the current solar dip is cancelling out the claimed CO2 forcing ?

    The next IPCC line will be that we need to act faster before the solar cycle returns back to normal levels causing global meltdown.

  196. Chuck Nolan says:

    Doug Allen says:
    December 13, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    “….. For instance, you present no evidence for your claim that “President Obama is already pushing a carbon tax…” Your link shows no evidence of that. Do you have any evidence?”
    ———————————–
    Why do you attempt to defend the indefensible?
    I believe the Mr Obama said something along the lines of in his version of a cap and trade system energy prices would necessarily skyrocket.
    Have you noticed any indications of him changing his mind?
    Not if you consider his failure to rein in Lisa Jackson.
    Does he need to keep it posted on his teleprompter that he is a true politician and always wants more tax money no matter how much he must lie and steal to get it.
    This blog is not about politics but it is about honesty in every form.
    Please, don’t be that way.
    cn

  197. pat says:

    and the CAGW Gatekeepers are so REACTIONARY!

    14 Dec: Guardian: Dana Nuccitelli for Skeptical Science, part of the Guardian Environment Network:
    Global warming is not due to the sun, confirms leaked IPCC report
    Climate sceptics’ claims that UN climate science panel’s AR5 report show the sun is causing global warming don’t stack up
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/global-warming-sun-leaked-ipcc-report

    14 Dec: Age, Australia: Ben Cubby and Tom Arup: Human climate link firms
    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/human-climate-link-firms-20121214-2bfdi.html

  198. Fred Nietzsche says:

    I would like to know how many people leaving the above comments have the requisite qualifications to understand what is in the report. What I mean by requisite qualifications is both a good understanding of the science involved in the debate, an open mind and the ability to discriminate between truth and BS. I venture that the answer is “very, very few”. It’s a bit like reading James Lovelock, a critical mind can see many flaws but a dull, normal mind just accepts what is said in faith. “Would the last person to leave please turn out the enlightenment”? (This Is Serious Mum – De Rigueurmortis)

  199. prjindigo says:

    So now all we have to do is get them to admit that 90%+ of the heat is actually “solar forcing”…

  200. Paul Vaughan says:

    The CERN CLOUD experiment is being misrepresented as something much more than what it is. It does not have the power to erase recorded history. The experiment can’t answer the solar-terrestrial question. It’s not designed to do that. It can only answer a very narrow technical question. Whether the answer to that very narrow technical question comes back positive or negative, the solar-terrestrial relationship exists. There’s no need to suspend judgement on existence. The expensive experiment is about deciding details of how to micro-model. Suspension of judgement on technical details of how to micro-model is defensible, but the macro picture is already clear. Build in delays on how to micro-model if you must, but be lucidly aware that trying to conflate micro-modeling uncertainties with macro-observation certainties comes across as (whether it is or not) maliciously deceptive evasion, a sure way to immediately eliminate trust. If sensible parties don’t confront such (possibly accidental) obfuscation tactics head-on, the potential for enduring distortion is enormous since the pool of people with lucid, first-hand awareness of aggregate constraints is critically small. The bottom line is that no one can look sensible arguing against the laws of large numbers and conservation of angular momentum. No sensible person is going to consciously step into such a strictly governed pair of cross-hairs. Thus, we have at our disposal an easy means of identifying in the clearest terms dark agents of ignorance &/or deception. Please be careful.

  201. D Böehm says:

    Kudos to Alec Rawls for this excellent story. The IPCC is looking for a way to rationalize the fact that there has been no global warming for a decade and a half. The answer is simple: CO2 does not have the claimed effect, and the planet is not cooperating with the climate alarmists.

    Dana Nuccitelli says:

    You do realize that amplifying a negative number just gives you a bigger negative number, right? In other words, you’re arguing for bigger solar cooling since 1980.

    Totally muddled thinking. “Bigger solar cooling”?

    That would be ‘less solar warming’, Dana. You don’t inject ‘cooling’ into a system, you reduce warming. But that is the kind of fuzzy thinking we’ve come to expect from the logic-challenged alarmist crowd.

  202. RES says:

    Fred Nietzsche says:
    December 14, 2012 at 5:29 am
    I would like to know how many people leaving the above comments have the requisite qualifications to understand what is in the report. What I mean by requisite qualifications is both a good understanding of the science involved in the debate, an open mind and the ability to discriminate between truth and BS. I venture that the answer is “very, very few”. It’s a bit like reading James Lovelock, a critical mind can see many flaws but a dull, normal mind just accepts what is said in faith. “Would the last person to leave please turn out the enlightenment”? (This Is Serious Mum – De Rigueurmortis)

    Are you saying that the subscribers on blogs such as “Skeptical Science, part of the Guardian Environment Network” are more ‘enlightened’? I like to think that this blog shows in the main, people from all walks of life can think for themselves and not regurgitate the alarmist dogma and their propensity to impugn people for not toeing the party line!

  203. krischel says:

    Sorry, added the summary pdf to the torrent. New magnet:

    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3f31ecb2a557732ea8d42e14b87aca7efb5dbcc7&dn=IPCCAR5&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.cc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80

    This will download to the same folder name as the old torrent that didn’t have the summary pdf. Thanks for the tip Bob K.!

  204. Chuck Nolan says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 13, 2012 at 6:20 pm
    …………………….gems such as this one:

    “It is virtually certain that globally-averaged surface and upper ocean (top 700m) temperatures averaged over 2016–2035 will be warmer than those averaged over 1986–2005.”
    ——————-
    David the key word there is “virtually”. You know, as in virtual reality.
    It means they are certain the virtual computer is virtually right, basically, sort of right, almost, nearly, but not quite right. But, if you close your eyes and imagine in your minds eye how bad CO2 is you can understand how fossil fuel has damaged our virtual earth, according to the virtual computer programs they put together to identify and eliminate this virtual CAGW.
    cn

  205. jrwakefield says:

    peejeshare isnt working. no file available

  206. krischel says:

    MODS: It might be helpful to replace all the previous magnet links with the new one, in case someone doesn’t read through the comments to the end.

    Please strike out the old one, and place this:

    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3f31ecb2a557732ea8d42e14b87aca7efb5dbcc7&dn=IPCCAR5&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.cc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80

    Or, even better, put it as an update in the post itself!

    Unfortunately, the first one was missing the Summary PDF, and you can’t add a file to a torrent without changing its hash value.

    REPLY: I’ve updated the link in the “update” of the posting, and I’ve put the new link under any of the old links in prior comments. (Trying to both preserve the original ‘flow’ / context while having the new link clearly the right one.) -ModE

  207. lsvalgaard says:

    Chris R. says:
    December 13, 2012 at 3:07 pm
    This is going to make Leif Svalgaard mad, since he doesn’t believe the GCR-cloud link
    is significant.

    As the Report says: “there is high confidence (medium evidence and high agreement) that the GCR-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of cloud condensation nuclei or their change over the last century or during a SC in a climatically-significant way”

  208. dave ward says:

    I downloaded the RAR folder successfully from filedropper.com – It’s 121MB which decompresses to 131MB. A word of caution – I clicked on the first of the links provided by “gnomish” and my Antivirus blocked it with a warning message. I didn’t try the other two!

  209. Darren Potter says:

    Total Mass Retain says: “He might then realise that comparing the Sun-Earth system with a pot heating on a stove is a rather stupid comparison.”

    True, but you have to realize the analogy works on the masses. The masses being the low-interest, just tell me what to think and do, main stream media & “the View” watchers.
    The analogy is perfect suited for the vast majority of Washington, D.C. politicians.

  210. Kev-in-Uk says:

    Fred Nietzsche says:
    December 14, 2012 at 5:29 am

    I don’t suppose its possible to give a real answer to how many commenters are suitably qualified to comment – but after a few years visiting this blog, I would guess that at least 50% of commenters are well educated (degree or higher) and there is a quite varied range of expertise – some may be simple geologists/engineers (like myself), others maybe IT specialists, or statistical analysts, etc. Then again, many other commenters are equally useful in their ‘non-scientific’ appraisal sometimes – because they have not been classicially science ‘influenced’ and can often ask/probe the right questions. What you have, in effect, is a wide range of generally ‘open minded’ people prepared to look at EVIDENCE, and to discuss and decide for themselves what any CONCLUSIONS might be – not the spoon fed IPCC type predigested and overly masticated crud everyone else takes as read!

  211. John@EF says:

    Alec Rawls says:
    December 13, 2012 at 10:52 pm

    “Seems likely that this (enhanced solar forcing) is nothing new and has been openly discussed in the past.”

    But never admitted to by the IPCC. In AR3 and AR4 only considered and dismissed a few possible mechanisms. This is the first time they have acknowledged the evidence that SOME such mechanism seems to be at work, yet all of their conclusions are still based on the assumption that the only solar forcing is TSI.
    ========
    Perhaps because the unverified effects and active mechanisms are of very low relative significance. It’s like a “fine tuning knob”, as Dr. alley described.

  212. Darren Potter says:

    Fat Tony says: “This hasn’t been about the Science for ages: it’s a political/religious movement akin to Islam in its zeal to control us all.”

    It is also about $$$$. With Faux Climatologists getting funding for job security and their new lab toys, and the redistribution of wealth from “Evil Rich” countries to poor countries. Along with power players making money on the selling of “Going Green” products, which carry a higher price tag (thus more profits) than their non-green counter parts.

  213. Here are some more mirrors for the RAR archive. You can use UnRarX on a Mac or Stuffit Expander (Windows/Mac) to uncompress (both free).
    http://goo.gl/RwQZh
    http://goo.gl/DrEN5

  214. William says:

    AR-5 really does scare the socks off. The fear is abrupt global cooling, however, rather than AGW.

    For example;

    • Observations of Antarctic sea ice extent show a small but significant increase by 1.4 [1.2 to 1.6] % per decade between 1979 and 2011. {4.2.3}

    The reduction in Arctic sea ice and increase in Antarctic sea ice has happened before and is called the polar see-saw or polar anomaly. (See Svensmark’s attached paper.) The polar see-saw occurs during Dansgaard-Oscheger events (also called Bond events). It is now apparent the later 20th century warming was a Bond event. Gerald Bond found evidence of cosmogenic isotope changes at each of a long series of warming followed by cooling events (he has able to track 25 events through current interglacial Holocene and into the last glacial period, at which point he reached the limit of the range of the proxy analysis technique) which indicates a solar magnetic cycle change caused the warming followed by cooling cycle.

    Roughly every 6000 years to 8000 years, the Bond event (warming followed by gradual cooling) is followed by an abrupt cooling event which is called a Heinrich event. We have experienced the most activity set of solar magnetic cycles and the longest continuous set of high activity solar magnetic cycles in 11,000 years. There has been an abrupt change from a set of very, very, high solar magnetic cycle activity to what will be apparent next year is a special Maunder minimum. The cosmogenic isotope record indicates that pattern correlates with a Heinrich event.

    I believe I understand the mechanisms related to the Heinrich events and have moved on to astrophysics problems looking for an explanation as to how the sun could cause what is observed and looking for observational evidence to understand and support a model for the fundamental physics implications. Fascinating subject. Interesting puzzle. There is outstanding, mature, organized, observational analysis which has been completed by others. There are unexplained structural anomalies throughout the field (cosmology), which are recognized by specialists as paradoxes or anomalies. The problem situation is similar to the rules required to solve a jigsaw puzzle. The observations fit together logically to create one picture or story. The trick is to follow or use all of the observations, rather than to cut the observations, ignore the observations, or create your own jigsaw pieces, to fit a preferred, given, or assumed story or picture. It is significantly easy to solve a jigsaw like puzzle at the point where one has a fairly good idea of the general outline of the picture or story. This is physics, not magic. There is a physical explanation for past physical events and future physical events.

    It is truly astonishing how far along the work goes before someone notes the pieces obviously fit together to tell a different story than the story that was selected before there was observational evidence to solve the problem.

    I would highly recommend viewing Anthony Watts’ interview of Dr. Sebastian Lüning where Dr. Lüning discusses the evidence concerning past solar forcing of the planet’s climate. This is an outstanding presentation and interview. The interviewer is polite, unobtrusive, and informed. The presenter is logical, professional, and polite. The presentation is peer reviewed and observationally based. There is no music to emphasize or to make propaganda points, there are no sound bites taken out context, there are no ad hominem statements, there are no movie clips of icebergs or hurricanes, there is no appeal to opinion polls to support the conclusions, and so on.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/30/more-wuwt-tv-interview-and-presentation-with-dr-sebastian-luning/

    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1

    The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays

    Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event

    Temperature proxy from four ice cores for the last 140,000 years, clearly indicating the greater magnitude of the D-O effect in the northern hemisphere.

    Dansgaard–Oeschger events (often abbreviated D–O events) are rapid climate fluctuations that occurred 25 times during the last glacial period. Some scientists (see below) claim that the events occur quasi-periodically with a recurrence time being a multiple of 1,470 years, but this is debated. The comparable climate cyclicity during the Holocene is referred to as Bond events.

    In the Northern Hemisphere, they take the form of rapid warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period. For example, about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet warmed by around 8 °C over 40 years, in three steps of five years (see,[2] Stewart, chapter 13), where a 5 °C change over 30-40 years is more common.

    Heinrich events only occur in the cold spells immediately preceding D-O warmings, leading some to suggest that D-O cycles may cause the events, or at least constrain their timing.[3]
    The course of a D-O event sees a rapid warming of temperature, followed by a cool period lasting a few hundred years.[4] This cold period sees an expansion of the polar front, with ice floating further south across the North Atlantic ocean.[4]

    Although the effects of the Dansgaard–Oeschger events are largely constrained to ice cores taken from Greenland,[5] there is evidence to suggest D-O events have been globally synchronous.[6] A spectral analysis of the American GISP2 isotope record [7] showed a peak of [18O:16O] abundance around 1500 years. This was proposed by Schulz (2002) [8] to be a regular periodicity of 1470 years. This finding was supported by Rahmstorf (2003);[9] if only the most recent 50,000 years from the GISP2 core are examined, the variation of the trigger is ±12% (±2% in the 5 most recent events, whose dates are probably most precise…

  215. W37press says:

    What … IPCC dares withhold its taxpayer-funded “Climate Science” version?!?
    http://phrasegenerator.com/academic

  216. Luther Wu says:

    Spreading this leaked report to the far holes of the interwebs (and resultant spasms) has already caused 786.3 Kg of CO2 emissions.

    The Horror!

  217. Severian says:

    Let me guess how this will turn out in the final report, solar forcing is large, but it’s CO2 that makes the climate responsive to this forcing so we have to limit CO2 regardless…

  218. Alan the Brit says:

    AND on the BBC News the reporting on the UNIPCC in Doha is……………….nothing, rien, nada, zip, zilch!

    Except this little O/T missive..http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20663875

    Frankly, how on Earth (excuse the pun) on a planet consisting of a surface made up of 71% water, can they seriously claim they can measure a significant local difference I do not know. Although such a report would play into the hands of the PDREU Commissars demanding we use less water & new storage reservoirs are bad things for the environment!!! You are next my colonial friends, just you wait & see!

  219. G says:

    This is absolutely ridiculous. The report makes NO claim of game-changing cosmic ray effects – it says they are NEGLIGIBLE. This is spread of misinformation and due to the severity of the climate change threat, is frankly dangerous. You seem to be intelligent enough – you must know that what you’re doing is immoral. You are deeply deluded.

  220. FrankK says:

    On the Aussie ABC last night yes a “leak” announcement from the IPCAC team person (it had a picture of him) indicating “cosmic rays cause cloudiness”. No mention of the Sun. But following some pictures of clouds a picture of a raging bush fire with the voice over that man is responsible for at least half the recent warming. Well I suppose that’s something given previously all warming was attributed to CO2.

  221. Paul Westhaver says:

    I suspect that IPPC report contributors who don’t really care about the science and only want affirmation of AGW, already detected the report contributors’ efforts to include solar influences. If I were them, I would be scrambling behind the scenes to have the solar influences blotted out in the final report due to be released to the public in 1 years time.

    Therein lies the basis for the release of this draft version at this time. It is to embarrass and shame the report final editors into keeping the solar influence language in future revisions. To imply further gerrymandering of the data and to undermine the future, edited IPCC’s report’s credibility.

    This is hardball politics. Now we need to put names and faces on the IPCC editors who were trying to “disappear” the solar influences sections.

    This Torrent Leak is a brutal move to bully the IPCC.

    I predict they will, nevertheless attempt to white wash the leak as an attempt by a disgruntled denier to steer the report in a direction not held by the majority and to release a final report without the solar influences language. Why do I think this? Because they are activist leftist liars and it is the only play they have to save their own skins.

    The like of Borenstein and Monbiot are already spinning a cover story…. just you wait and see.

  222. John Whitman says:

    Alec Rawls,

    Thank you.

    I am grateful to you for now having transparent and open access to the full AR5 draft so very soon after the closing of the expert reviewer commenting period and having it without needing to wait ~ 8 months for the IPCC official version’s release.

    This is a nice holiday gift. I will share with all my numerous associates!

    Let a totally transparent and open public scrutiny continue unabated. the public can see first hand the artificially forced ‘consensus’ that has caused the significant level of alarm-focused bias in climate science.

    NOTE: the language in the full AR5 draft can be described as much ‘less than words can say’. I think such pathetic quality in science communication is exactly why trust in climate science is questionable.

    I am settling down for a long holiday read.

    John

  223. FrankK says:

    G says:
    December 14, 2012 at 7:36 am

    This is absolutely ridiculous. The report makes NO claim of game-changing cosmic ray effects – it says they are NEGLIGIBLE. This is spread of misinformation and due to the severity of the climate change threat, is frankly dangerous. You seem to be intelligent enough – you must know that what you’re doing is immoral. You are deeply deluded.
    —————————————————————————————————————

    And the empirical evidence you base this on rather than deluded model simulation is ??

  224. richardscourtney says:

    G:

    Your post at December 14, 2012 at 7:36 am makes several unsubstantiated assertions most of which are wrong. However, I don’t challenge your assertions: I write to request two clarifications of one of your assertions.

    You assert

    the severity of the climate change threat

    1.
    Please explain the “threat” which you say has “severity”: is it imminent ice age?
    2.
    Please say any realistic possibilities which you think exist to avoid or minimise the “threat” which you think exists.

    Until you provide these clarifications your post will remain a mindless rant which wastes space in this thread.

    Richard

  225. G says:

    @FrankK
    The report says in the very next paragraph that peer-reviewed scientific literature has disproven the cosmic ray effect. The very next paragraph. The only reason this the cosmic ray effect is included in the report at all was so that it could acknowledge and then disprove all other theories – it’s standard scientific procedure. This whole episode is due to Rawls, quite simply, quoting something completely out of context and sparking interest in people who hear what they want to hear, i.e. people like you. Read the report yourself, and please, prove me wrong.

  226. Look, dickhead, if you’re going to publish something you stole, just go ahead and do it. Your self-aggrandizing and incompetent rationalizations aren’t helping, and it’s obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about anyway. (Nothing is “properly in the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act”. FOIA has nothing to do with public domain, and the existence of FOIA doesn’t give you the right to publish anything. It just gives you the right to request documents from the federal government, subject to their being legally available to the public to begin with – not the right to publish documents you received illegally. Saying something is “in the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act” is like saying it’s “in the public domain due to my library card” – it just makes you sound ignorant.)

    REPLY: Reconcile your hatred with previous IPCC statements, show your work – Anthony

    Some prior remarks by IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri:

    “The IPCC is a totally transparent organization…Whatever we do is available for scrutiny at every stage.” – magazine interview, May 2009

    “The objective and transparent manner in which the IPCC functions…should convey conviction on the strength of its findings to all rational persons…” – testimony to a US Senate committee, February 2009

    “[The IPCC's] work is carried out with complete transparency and objectivity…” – speech to heads of state, December 2008

    “So you can’t think of a more transparent process…than what we have in the IPCC. I would only put that forward as valid reasons to accept the science and the scientific assessments that are carried out.” – newspaper interview, June 2007

  227. Robin says:

    I went back and read the full Christina Figueres 360 interview and was quite struck by how the global guided transformation based on centralised planning she admits the UN is engaged in here fits with a UN education model for the West that arose in the early 70s. At the height of the Cold War. But being mandated now.

    http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/coercing-teachers-to-be-social-and-political-saboteurs-what-can-be-done/ was the story I needed to write but the Figueres quote updates the rationale for this continued UN meddling in Western societies and economies. So I used it to explain to teachers and parents why the mandated change in classrooms globally now.

    The UNESCO early 70s report I was basing the ed story on explicitly says education is merely a part of a total economic and social transformation. What it called “The Learning Society” is totally planned. Chilling to read quite frankly. I guess Christina would call it “guided.” The report also admitted this could be seen as depriving human freedom but since it was in pursuit of the greater goal of changing human nature, temporary restrictions on freedom were acceptable.

    I don’t if any of us would agree with this attitude born of the Cold War and still quite alive and well.

  228. Bill Yarber says:

    In September ’07, my wife and I had lunch with Dr Richard Alley (PSU) upstairs in the “Corner Room”, a State College land mark. Based on my process control background, his landmark icecore work on CO2 vs Earth’s temperature, and sun spot cycles 22, 23 & 24, I told him that it was the Sun, not CO2! CO2, being a lagging indicator, could not be a dominant forcing, it is a non-factor in Earth’s temperature changes. We discussed the science a while longer and he finally ended our conversation by saying:

    “It has to be CO2 because we can’t find any other cause.”

    Dr Alley, 5 years later, I told you it was the Sun! You should have listened! But if you had, look at the funding you would have lost!

    Bill

  229. G says:

    @richardscourtney
    The first step towards solving a problem is recognising there is one.
    1. The threat is severe. Greenhouse gas emissions trap heat. Global greenhouse gas emissions are well above any natural average, due to human activity. The world is warming, and will continue to warm, due to the decisions we make. This increases frequency of drought, thus placing even more strain on global food supplies. It raises the sea level due to the melting of polar ice (which is already recognised to be destined for total summer melting), which will relocate tens of millions of people. All of what I’m saying is based on scientific peer review, done by people who have undergone years of scientific training and who put their careers on the line making these assertions.
    2. The first thing we could do, is not break codes of moral conduct and release scientific reports before they are completed, and then quote them completely out of context. Every time we do this, it slows down the process of getting scientific, peer-reviewed information properly digested by the majority of the population, who rely on the media to break down and disseminate the information. We both don’t know for sure whether humanity is causing global warming. The difference is, you get your information from sources with no scientific background, and I do.

  230. John@EF says:

    G says:
    December 14, 2012 at 7:56 am

    @FrankK
    The report says in the very next paragraph that peer-reviewed scientific literature has disproven the cosmic ray effect. The very next paragraph. The only reason this the cosmic ray effect is included in the report at all was so that it could acknowledge and then disprove all other theories – it’s standard scientific procedure. This whole episode is due to Rawls, quite simply, quoting something completely out of context and sparking interest in people who hear what they want to hear, i.e. people like you. Read the report yourself, and please, prove me wrong.
    ========
    Welcome to WUWT. 8^)

    This post is the most recent confirmation of your observation > Bill Yarber says: December 14, 2012 at 8:05 am

    Incredible, isn’t it?

  231. krischel says:

    For all those seeding the old torrent magnet, please update to this URL:

    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3f31ecb2a557732ea8d42e14b87aca7efb5dbcc7&dn=IPCCAR5&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.cc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80

    The old torrent magnet was missing the summary pdf, and the new one has it. I’ve stopped seeding on the old URL, and will continue to seed the new one indefinitely.

  232. Severian says:

    G says: “The first step towards solving a problem is recognising there is one.”

    Oh the irony, it burns. Perhaps you should look at the immoral and dishonest IPCC process as the problem, or say putting the answer before the question, CO2 regardless of the facts, as the problem?

    I’d suggest you do a little research on Feynman’s definition of pseudoscience before you get on a ethical high horse and start charging at windmills there Don…

  233. Crispin in Yogyakarta says:

    Well… here is my favourite failure of a universal CAGW prediction and serial failure to prove it true:

    There is no reference to the problem of the poor prediction, made most explicit in the Fourth Assessment, of the upper troposphere warming faster than the surface. None of the measurements, satellite or balloons, show this, and no mentionof the intense debate around the matter.

    Instead, both are absolutely silent on the matter. One table shows the Lower and Middle Troposphere and the Lower, Middle and Upper Stratosphere temperature trends and merely comments in the text that more data are needed for the Upper Troposphere. Not even the critical references from the peer-reviewed journals are cited.

    It is for this that the word ‘weasel’ was invented.

  234. zootcadillac says:

    @G
    Forgive me for butting in but iI’d like some clarification please.

    In your last post you offer a lot of ideas ‘based upon scientific peer review’ but cite nothing so if I may?

    You say The threat is severe and go on to say:

    Greenhouse gas emissions trap heat

    This is true. It’s obvious in a laboratory setting. However it is little understood in an chaotic, atmospheric setting as observed. We do not understand with any confidence, the exact relationship between greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global temperatures. Unless of course you are referring to models in which case I will remind you that the models are not evidence of anything and do not match observations.

    Global greenhouse gas emissions are well above any natural average, due to human activity

    What is the natural average? What gases are we talking about? Please cite what the average is for each greenhouse gas that you believe is a problem so I may understand just how far above that average we are. Then show me where I can understand the extent to which human emissions have increased the levels with an accuracy of some confidence in the measurement.

    The world is warming, and will continue to warm, due to the decisions we make. This increases frequency of drought, thus placing even more strain on global food supplies.

    Over what period would you like this assertion to cover? Are you aware that there is no observed increase in drought or the rate of change in drought?
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11575.html
    and that there is no strain on food production except in areas where that has always been the case and people are just too stubborn and continue to try agriculture there.

    It raises the sea level due to the melting of polar ice (which is already recognised to be destined for total summer melting), which will relocate tens of millions of people.

    You are aware the sea level rise has not altered for decades ( rate of change ) and whilst it is a positive trend it remains fairly constant and has in fact slowed in recent years?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/13/sea-level-acceleration-not-so-fast-recently/
    You claim that the melting of polar ice ( much of which is due to Arctic ice being forced south by local weather patterns rather than melting due to temperature ) has some issues. The Arctic ice flots. It’s already contributing as much as it ever will to sea level due to displacement. Antarctic ice is actually gaining in ice so is not contributing to sea level as you assert. Please clarify.

    As to part 2? All I can say is that you seem to believe that the IPCC AR reports are a ‘scientific report’ this is not now nor has ever been the case. It is a conclusion by a UN body intended to make a policy recommendation document for governments

  235. Alec Rawls says:

    Professor Sherwood at the Aussie ABC News:

    “I’m sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite – that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible,” he told PM.

    Claiming that the evidence for a particular mechanism of enhanced solar forcing (GCR-cloud) suggests a weak effect is not a counter to the admission of substantial evidence that SOME such mechanism does have a powerful effect. As I wrote in the post:

    The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work.

    Sherwood is in effect trying to deny this. He is reverting to the position that enhanced solar forcing can be dismissed because he thinks he has grounds to rate one proposed mechanism of solar amplification as weak, despite the now-mountain of evidence that SOME such mechanism is at work.

    I charged in my FOD comments that this was an exact inversion of the scientific method. The authors were using theory (their disatisfaction with a particular theory of how solar amplification might work) as a grounds for dismissing the evidence, but evidence is supposed to trump theory, not vice versa. The sentence about the evidence pointing to SOME mechanism of solar amplification, even if we don’t know how it works, seems to have been added as a response to my charge of inverting the scientific method. Now Sherwood is going back to that inversion. He thinks GCR-cloud effects should be weak (a very premature conclusion) and decides on that grounds that the whole idea of enhanced solar forcing can be dismissed, despite that added sentence to the contrary. Choose your poison Sherewood: invert the scientific method, or acknowledge that all of the IPCC’s conclusions are based on TSI-only models, when the evidence says that there is more going on with the sun than TSI.

  236. AlecM says:

    My Dear G: how deluded you are. Any professional with substantial radiant heat transfer knowledge, and mine came from being a metallurgical engineer where we use GHGs to heat and cool materials, knows the IPCC ‘consensus’ is totally wrong.

    Explaining this Big Mistake is quite easy. When you have two radiating bodies, in this case the Earth’s surface and the adjacent atmosphere at nearly the same temperature, the two radiation fields interact such that the net energy transfer is the vector sum of the Poynting Vectors over all the wavelengths.

    Because the atmospheric GHG thermal emission is apparently nearly a black body** in that wavelength range, it annihilates most of the same wavelengths from the Earth’s surface. The only GHG IR to be emitted is a limited subset of water vapour side bands. There can be no CO2-AGW – Never.

    The reason this false science developed is mainly because meteorologists now climate scientists have misunderstood what a pyrometer measures. They think the pyrgeometer variant measures real energy flux when it can’t. So, the Trenberth energy budget is a glorious failure to understand basic scientific instrumentation. A secondary issue is that bolometers on satellites show the CO2 15 micron band is depleted at TOA and imagine this is because of absorption of surface IR in those wavelengths by GHG absorption. it isn’t – it’s self absorption of IR in the last absorption path**.

    If this process of annihilation did not take place we truly would get the thermal runaway the alarmists in the IPCC claim. But it would have happened very soon after the Earth was formed and we’d be dispersed all over space. So, rest easy. those IPCC scientists are pulling your leg by using fake physics created by the people behind the scam.

    I don’t give a damn about ‘consensus’. Few if any of the people claiming it have any qualification in this key area of physics.and the dumb followers have proved they’re dumb.

    **There’s another instrumental problem here – it only occurs in the atmosphere so you can’t compare it with satellite measurements in a vacuum. However it doesn’t matter when you use net data. Bolometers in a vacuum measure the true signal.

  237. Luther Wu says:

    To: G@8:07am 12/14/2012.

    You base your opinions on info from scientific sources, so maybe you could clear up a few points for me…

    What would be the ideal CO2 concentration on Earth?
    Speaking of which, is the current level of atmospheric CO2 better, or worse for plant growth and the biosphere?
    Has the Earth avg. temp (past decade) been ranging above or below the ideal temperature?
    In other words, what should Earth’s ideal temperature be?
    How will the Arctic Ice Cap raise sea levels?

  238. davidmhoffer says:

    Folks, let’s not get entirely focused on the GCR thing. Yes it is important, but my quick skim of just a few pages reveals that there is plenty more dubious science in this document. Gems like:

    o they have a high level of certainty that ground level ozone in the future will be higher, lower, or about the same (yes, they actually said that!)

    o they have a 95% confidence that the models are in agreement…. with each other. Wow. What about being in agreement with the temperature record?

    o they do have some verbiage about forecasting, for example they ran their models with 1960 and 1980 data and show they have some skill. Wow, using data and models written in 2000, they can correctly model 1960 forward and 1980 forward. Big deal. What I want to know is how well models written in 2000 did compared to 2012. I haven’t found that kind of comparison yet, and I know of know model that predicted the cooling period we are currently experiencing.

    o they predict LESS severe weather in Ch11, in opposition to everything they’ve been saying until now.

    That’s just from a few pages of Ch11! My point here is that they are meeting again in January (see their just released statement) to consider revisions.

    So let’s hammer them. Find the mistakes, find the obfuscation, the misdirection, document it and publish it. They’re behind the 8 ball and they know it. They either have to back down in the final draft, or they have to knowingly publish false information. They are scr*wed either way if we get down to work and start documenting this utter bullsh*t.

    And let’s not leave the Summary for Policy makers out of it. Shred that too, turn up every instance you can of disparity between the science and the summary. Blog about it here or anywhere that you can get the issues made public. They’ll be forced to back down on those issues too for the final draft if we seize this opportunity and make the most of it.

  239. richardscourtney says:

    G:

    Thankyou for your reply providing a clarification to me which you provide at December 14, 2012 at 8:07 am. I deal with each of your points in turn except for your final point which I address first.

    You say to me

    We both don’t know for sure whether humanity is causing global warming. The difference is, you get your information from sources with no scientific background, and I do.

    Oh dear!
    I get my “information” from the IPCC and primary sources (i.e. published scientific papers).
    It seems that you get your information from propagandists.

    I know for certain fact that any putative anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is too small for it to be discernible.

    Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.

    Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.

    The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.

    Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
    Idso from surface measurements
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
    and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
    and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf

    Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1 .0deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

    To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.

    You say

    The first step towards solving a problem is recognising there is one.

    Indeed so. And the first step to avoid causing unnecessary problems is to identify when a scare is unfounded requires no action.

    You say

    1. The threat is severe. Greenhouse gas emissions trap heat. Global greenhouse gas emissions are well above any natural average, due to human activity. The world is warming, and will continue to warm, due to the decisions we make. This increases frequency of drought, thus placing even more strain on global food supplies. It raises the sea level due to the melting of polar ice (which is already recognised to be destined for total summer melting), which will relocate tens of millions of people.

    That is so wrong as to be risible!
    Greenhouse gases (GHGs) don’t “trap heat”. They absorb IR photons so gain an excited state then emit other photons in random directions or discharge thermally by collisions. This alters the distribution of thermal energy throughout the climate system. This is known as the ‘greenhouse effect’ (GE).

    GHGs are not “well above any natural average”. The major GHG by far is water vapour and atmospheric humidity has declined slightly of recent.

    The world is not warming. There has been warming from the Little Ice Age (LIA) for three hundred years but that warming has been interrupted by pauses. There has been no global warming discernible at 95% confidence for 16 years (i.e. since 1996). It remains to be seen if warming from the LIA will resume or if global temperature will fall when the present ‘zero trend’ to global temperature ceases.
    There are no decisions we can make to affect that.

    The major anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) GHG emission is carbon dioxide (CO2). Additional CO2 is beneficial to crops, and this is why horticulturists spend money to pump CO2 into their greenhouses. Atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing in the atmosphere but it is not known – and cannot be known with present information – if that rise is natural or is a result of the anthropogenic CO2 emission.
    (ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )

    There is no evidence of increased droughts and no evidence of increased floods.

    Arctic ice is floating so its melting does not increase sea level (try melting an ice cube in a glass of water and you will be able to observe that there is no change to the water level in the glass).

    Antarctic ice is increasing.

    There is no increase to the rate of sea level rise which has been happening for the last ten thousand years.

    You say

    All of what I’m saying is based on scientific peer review, done by people who have undergone years of scientific training and who put their careers on the line making these assertions.

    Thankyou. Please note the second co-author in the peer reviewed paper I reference above.
    However, also please note that you have made a logical fallacy: a statement is not right merely because it is made by an authority.

    You say

    2. The first thing we could do, is not break codes of moral conduct and release scientific reports before they are completed, and then quote them completely out of context. Every time we do this, it slows down the process of getting scientific, peer-reviewed information properly digested by the majority of the population, who rely on the media to break down and disseminate the information.

    I agree that we should “not break codes of moral conduct” and I would not have leaked the AR5. But I can and do understand how others could think the moral imperative was to inform the public of what is being done in their name. If you want to know why I understand that then read my post in this thread at December 14, 2012 at 2:51 am.

    Nothing was “quoted out of context”. The entire report was leaked and certain statements in it were cited because the person who made the leak thought they were noteworthy.

    Peer reviewed information is NOT disseminated to the public. Indeed, your extreme misunderstandings are demonstration of that.

    The public are being sold an untrue scare for reasons of personal interests by a wide variety of sources.

    Read the subjects on WUWT. You clearly need to learn.

    Richard

  240. Craig Loehle says:

    There are 3 mechanisms for amplifying TSI: GCR, UV stratosphere effects, and electric field effects. The IPCC review can not rule out any of them except with hand-waving. There is cherry-picking of evidence in this section (though not as much as last time). To accept a hypothesis (CO2 effect) when you can not rule out competing hypotheses is NOT science. The CO2 effect, especially in terms of the amplification idea, is as weak as these other hypotheses.

  241. beesaman says:

    7.4.5.3 Synthesis
    Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way.

    So high agreement by who? Using only Medium evidence, well that’s all right then. The clique get to write off a tranche of the science because there’s not enough of it and they’ve all agreed not to like it, talk about a closed shop. No wonder they are so secretive!

  242. Gail Combs says:

    vukcevic says: @ December 13, 2012 at 12:39 pm
    In the East Europe politicians are far more dexterous in dealing with both ‘subversive skeptics’ and indeed with the climate change itself
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Fear not Comrade Vukcevic. The West is learning. Indeed Comrade Docktor Lewandowski of the University of Western Australia’s Cognitive Science Department has already given the definitive diagnosis:

    Watching the Deniers

    When told a scientific consensus exists, and that it is on the order of 97% of climate scientists, the vast majority of the public accept the science…. Yes, even the most right-wing conservative free market fundamentalist can come to terms with the science. Those that don’t remain the committed to their scepticism” are mostly the conspiracy theorists and idealogues.

    Those who do not accept the Consensus are not only “conspiracy theorists and idealogues” but are denial-disinformer[s] — someone actively promoting denialistic thinking… denial predators

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    On a side note from the same site:
    Across the English speaking world public trust in journalists and the media is collapsing.

    The Graph with data from 2010 vs 2011. Unfortunately the USA is one of the most trusting of western countries. I guess we believe the myth that the fourth estate looks out for the people’s interest.

  243. Frank40 says:

    I managed to download and I have read through. But I can’t really understand why the contents of this report would show anything about decisive the sun at all. Am I totally wrong or isn’t it so that the sun is in a rather steady “cooling” period. How would that explain the warming we have seen? For sure there seems to be stuff we do not understand about the sun, cosmic particles and clouds, but in the papers cited in this report have not found any good links.

  244. beesaman says:

    7.5.3
    Regional and global models systematically misrepresent the distribution of clouds, and cloud processes,especially those for shallow maritime clouds. One persistent shortcoming of global models is the tendency to only treat aerosol-cloud interactions in terms of stratiform but not convective clouds. In fact most GCMs neglect the radiative effect of convective clouds entirely. Recent efforts to consistently address both types of cloud representations represent a significant advance in large scale-modelling (Jacobson, 2003; Lohmann, 2008; Suzuki et al., 2008). Nonetheless our understanding of aerosol-cloud interactions is incomplete, and what is well-understood, is incompletely represented in large-scale models.

    Makes you wonder why they are so damned sure about what is ‘actually’ happening.
    But we must not question these science emperors clothing choices after all, ‘they’ know best!

  245. Ninderthana says:

    If you are looking for one possible solar amplification factor – you need look no further than the Moon and its long-term [climate] effects upon atmospheric and oceanic tides. The Lunar tidal effects act in concert with the changes in the overall level of solar activity and so appear to
    “amplify” the changes caused by the Sun.

  246. zootcadillac says:

    Thank you to @richardscourtney for saying the things to @G that I wanted to say but in a much better presentation. That’s understandable given that he’s a respected scientist working in this area and I’m a retired builder who spends his time in motorcycle race paddocks.
    I enjoy Richards posts, not least because even when I am showing myself to be the clueless layman he’s happy to respond and has never ridiculed me for my lack of knowledge and has taken me seriously and allowed me to learn.

    That being said, even as Richard has covered some of my points I still would like @G to address the points I have brought up in response to his post but will wait ( if acknowledged) as i concede that his conversation with Richard takes precedence. I have plenty of time, I’m laid up with the dreaded manflu.

    I’ve not yet commented on the thrust of this post and the solar connection as I don’t feel qualified to do so. I am a strong believer in solar forcings being the main driver of terrestrial and atmospheric temperatures because it’s the only idea that appears to make any sense to me but I’m not convinced that this paragraph taken out of context is saying what Alec wants it to say. But time will tell.

    I am grateful to Alec for releasing the documents, I feel it was the moral thing to do because despite the IPCC claiming transparency they don’t ever want you to see how they get to where they get to and more importantly what they choose to dismiss in favour of that which supports their pre-disposed position. Every word on those pages is taxpayer funded and everything the IPCC does is in the public interest so we should be able to disseminate their work and freely discuss it despite their insistence that it’s a work in progress. We should be able to contribute to that progress so it becomes an honest evaluation for once.

  247. mpainter says:

    G says:
    You have made several assertions that are untrue:

    “The world is warming”

    Untrue. The world is not warming. The last warming trend ended before this century began, some fifteen years ago.

    “Increased frequency of droughts”

    Untrue. Actually, a warmer world means higher levels of humidity, less drought and a shrinking of deserts, as in the Sahara circa 4,000-6,000 years ago during the era known as the climatic optimum when temperatures averaged some 2 degrees higher than today’s. Most global climate models affirm that higher levels of humidity are a consequence of a warmer world.

    “a strain on global food supplies”

    Untrue. A warmer world means increased food supplies through higher levels of humidity, a longer growing season, and an increase of arable land.

    “Raises the sea level…….relocate tens of millions”

    Untrue. Sea level has risen for the last several centuries at or near the same rate seen today, which rate is not measured exactly, but at some 1-2 mm per year. This will stop when the next cooling trend begins, which some climate scientists predict within the decade. With sea levels rising for several centuries, no one has been relocated, except where local subsidence has occurred. The claim of relocating “tens of millions” is simply the sort of unfounded alarmism that gets propagated by politically motivated types. So, relax, don’t let yourself get bothered by the panic mongering.
    You are in dire need of other points of view. Stick around WUWT and try not to get upset at views that are contrary to what the alarmists express, which views you seem to have swallowed uncritically. You could learn a lot here, if you are willing.

  248. herkimer says:

    Admission of enhanced solar warming is a start but far too weak a statement . The sun is the major climate forcing factor where the energy is passed from the sun to the oceans to the atmosphere with variable lag factors

    During the last 500 years there have been at least 4 major past climate periods where reduced global air temperatures , reduced ocean SST and reduced solar activity have taken place concurrently, namely 1650-1710, 1790-1830, 1880-1910 and our current period 2000-2012. One of these is happening during modern times where there is increased man made greenhouse gases while the temperatures are dropping. So the impact of Co2 seems not to be the major player even during this latest period. Any new IPCC report that does not acknowledge that there is an obvious major correlation that was previously understated between the sun, the oceans and atmosphere , the mechanism of which is not fully yet understood or adequately studied and where the sun plays the dominant part , is out of date and does not even begin to properly address the issue of climate change that is happening to day. To say that the sun plays a minor role is like saying , the brain has very little to do with human body activity. How the latest group of climate scientists of IPCC allow this scientific nonsense to go on during their watch should be the subject of a public enquiry.

  249. Kev-in-Uk says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 14, 2012 at 9:08 am

    totally agree David.

    Indeed, if Anthony note your comment (and this one) – he might perhaps consider a crowdsourcing review arrangement whereby us commentators can review individual chapters in groups and report back?
    it would save a lot of time and ensure detailed and careful reading of each chapter instead of a few of us just speed reading the lot!

    Anthony – What do you think? Ask for volunteers and arrange for say half a dozen reviewers for each chapter. Assign the reviewers randomly (unless you know that some have a special expertise in some sections?) and share email addresses between the volunteers in each group for conferring purposes. I’m up for it – would be an easy way to get the stuff carefully reviewed over the Xmas break in time for detailed ‘publication’ in the new year?

  250. charles ashurst says:

    “we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing.”

    Let’s say that’s true. Does that necessarily imply we can have a high degree of confidence that humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions have no serious consequences? From a public policy perspective are we well served in such an assumption?

  251. zootcadillac says:

    @Kev-in-Uk and @davidmhoffer I’m with you both on this. I think it would be interesting to have at least another thread ( or a thread per chapter ) where people might go to discuss the talking points in the whole report ( as unfinished as it is ). You never know, if there are some serious mistakes made we could have a hand in changing the opinions of some who will be in the next process of the report.

  252. Gail Combs says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    December 13, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    More meridional jets give the required cloudiness and albedo increase without having to involve GCRs and the Svensmark hypothesis.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Who said there has to be just one ‘Control Knob’? That is the defining fallacy of the IPCC. The odds that there are Confounding variables are great given what we already know of climate.

  253. Gail Combs says:

    Darn link did not work. Confounding variables =>>> http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/statsampling.html

  254. BillD says:

    So, the author, Dr. Sheffield, completely disagrees with Mr Rawls as to the meaning of what he wrote. In the summary of Chapter 7, one can read that the effects of variation in solar radiation are negligible. Do you really think that misunderstanding a paragraph really means the author has made a big admission?. If you can’t understand what the author of a review is saying or if you disagree with conclusions, you should start reading the original cited studies upon which a review, such as the IPCC reports is based. Science is not like politics, where something miss stated or potentially misunderstood (such as “the 47%”) has meaning. If you don’t understand what a review paper is saying, you need to read it more carefully and to go back to the original sources and citations. If you find a paragraph in a scientific article that disagrees with the author’s conclusions and summary, probably you are misunderstanding what the author was trying to say.

  255. Julian in Wales says:

    Congratulations – standing up takes guts.

    The ones who stand up are the heroes of free speech and democracy and deserve our thanks and respect. I wish I could shake your hand

  256. William says:

    I must admit, to becoming interested, in the political and propaganda posturing by the extreme AGW movement and the IPCC.

    The skeptics, it appears have scientific analysis. observations, and solar change on our side.

    Svensmark estimated that the sun was responsible for 75% of the 20th century warming. Paleo data shows past cycles of warming followed by cooling that correlate with changes in the solar magnetic cycle. The solar magnetic cycle is slowing down; it appears the sun will be spotless next year. It appears there will be cooling, back tracking all of the 20th century warming, over the next few years. The question is not if there will be cooling, but rather when the cooling will commence and how much.

    A lack of warming can be explained away as heat hiding in the deep ocean – which is odd as there is also a lack of warming of the ocean surface temperature and a lack warming of the top 700 m of the ocean – there is no such out for global cooling.

    How will the general public response and what will be the US government response when it becomes obvious that the IPCC and hundreds of climate scientists where absolutely incorrect, that the science was manipulated?

  257. Tzo says:

    Of course, this article is in direct contradiction to reality, and a pure distortion of facts:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23005-leaked-ipcc-report-reaffirms-dangerous-climate-change.html

    I’ll be surprised if this post makes it through Anthony Watt’s censorship, though.

    REPLY: Only government can impose censorship, you should know that since you work for a government entity. Besides, how can making an open discussion of the IPCC report be categorized as “censorship”? Your logic is bizarre, as many government created arguments are. The NS sees only what it wishes, but wait for the next post and tell me again about censorship. – Anthony

  258. Tzo says:

    mpainter says:
    Untrue. The world is not warming. The last warming trend ended before this century began, some fifteen years ago.

    Untrue. The world is definitely warming. Your denialist overlords have already abandoned this line of argument, I suggest you do the same.

    The warming trend has continued, unabated. I suspect you will retort with “But starting with a base year of 1998….”

    REPLY: wait till you see the next post, straight from the IPCC, and please tell us again how the world isn’t warming after that, it will make our day. – Anthony

  259. richardscourtney says:

    Tzo:

    Your post at December 14, 2012 at 10:49 am says in its entirety

    Of course, this article is in direct contradiction to reality, and a pure distortion of facts:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23005-leaked-ipcc-report-reaffirms-dangerous-climate-change.html
    I’ll be surprised if this post makes it through Anthony Watt’s censorship, though.

    Your first sentence makes an unfounded assertion.
    You follow that with a link to a propaganda source.
    Your second and final sentence makes an untrue assertion that Anthony Watts censors WUWT in the same manner as warmunists censor their blogs.

    It really is very sad how warmunists assume others used the nefarious practices which they use themselves.

    Richard

  260. Matthew R Marler says:

    IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing

    Over-wrought again. The idea was introduced for the purpose of claiming that it was not justified by any evidence. How is that “game-changing”?

  261. Camburn says:

    I don’t understand why anyone is surprised at the finding. William Herschel undstood the connection between the sun and clmate a long time ago. He did not udnerstand the mechanism, but he understood the results.
    http://www.real-science.com/astronomer-william-herschel-sunspots-wheat
    We still do not understand the mechanism, but at least we are gaining ground. To deny this connection, as proven by observation, is silly at best, and devious at worst.

    It is too bad that it has taken “climate Scientists”, to finally figure out something that has been widespread knowledge in the Ag community for decades.

  262. zootcadillac says:

    @Tzo.
    The New Scientist has a similar agenda to the BBC and the Guardian in these matters. I would trust them and their authors no more than i would trust Fox News when getting reliable, unbalanced reporting.

    you say: The warming trend has continued, unabated. I suspect you will retort with “But starting with a base year of 1998….”

    I will retort with this. why do you people persist with this idea that with regard to recent warming or lack thereof, that it is possible to cherry pick an arbitrary date in the past to suit an argument?
    When you are trying to determine the answer to ‘Warming appears to have ceased it’s upward trend recently, how long has this been going on?” then your start point is today. It’s your only option.

    You may not pick a point in history to suit. you pick the point closest to today for which you have relevant data and you work backwards up until the very point at which your hypothesis fails. So the date in the past where the hypothesis that the rate of change in global warming temperature data ceases its positive trend is some 17 years ago or 1995.
    It is therefore safe to say that since 1996 or the best part of the last 16 years the previously positive trend in temperature ceased to be positive to any significant amount. 1996 is your end point, not the start point.

    You mentioned 1998 so I’ve assumed a lot here because you don’t elaborate but I think I’m on the right track. You can’t cherry-pick anything when asking this particular question. You start now and let the data show us what they will.

    If we look at reliable temperature data from Hadcrut 3 or 4 without muddling them together with all manner of shenanigans then the data shows us that mean global temperatures have not continued unabated. I refuse to acknowledge the GISS data until they explain why they repeatedly adjust historical temperatures down and recent temperatures up with no notice that this has been going on.

  263. g2-91a96892c9b157ef8c7ff35a46563741 says:

    [snip - g2-91a96892c9b157ef8c7ff35a46563741 is not a valid name - mod]

  264. Matthew R Marler says:

    Alec Rawls:The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect.

    That sounds like the “same” game, not a “changed” game.

  265. theduke says:

    Tzo says:
    December 14, 2012 at 10:49 am

    “Of course, this article is in direct contradiction to reality, and a pure distortion of facts . . .”

    There are no facts that empirically prove that human induced warming is a significant contributor to the slight warm period we’ve experienced in the past 30 years. There is only correlation and as you should know by now, correlation is not causation. Until they empirically eliminate any an all other possible causes of the warming, and they’ve not even begun to do that, the science cannot be considered conclusive or, most importantly, a legitimate foundation for disruptive cultural and economic changes that are being forced down people’s throats prematurely. There are many other potential causes of the warming, natural variability being only one. There is not even a shred of credible evidence that any warming we have experienced or will experience will, on the scale of things, have adverse consequences for human life on the planet.

  266. Possible that these IPCC ever so smart ones, had they lived out in the open where the sun shines, possible that they would have learned amost as much as the old ones of
    http://www.nps.gov/chuc/index.htm

    A few curved stones, some long, long term observations.

    Possible that the air conditioning was just a bit to cool for them and when they went out to the car to ride home the warming reason just sliped their little green pointed heads.

  267. AndrewSanDiego says:

    G: “All of what I’m saying is based on scientific peer review, done by people who have undergone years of scientific training and who put their careers on the line making these assertions.”

    Dear troll “G”:

    Repeating the lies of Michael Mann and the other CAGW Lysenkoists does not impress. The “peer review” you cite has been shown repeatedly to be deliberately fraudulent.

    What part this do you not understand? “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”
    ( Phil Jones to Michael Mann: http://www.di2.nu/foia/1089318616.txt)

    And your claims of “years of scientific training” is a deliberate strawman so you can ignore the demonstrated fact that your “climate scientists” REFUSE to follow the Scientific Method. They keep their data and workings secret. The reason being that their “studies” you so admire are frauds.

    The Hockey Stick. Yamal. Upside-Down Tijlander. Sheep Mountain. Short-centered Principle Components Analysis. Climategate. Gleickgate. 28Gate.

    Fraud after fraud after fraud by the cretins YOU admire.

  268. Gail Combs says:

    A.D. Everard says:
    December 13, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    Alec, this is brilliant. Thank you!

    C’mon, MSM, here’s a chance to prove your worth!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You have got to be kidding. The MSM has been in on the CAGW scam from the very beginning.

    For decades the liberal class was a defense against the worst excesses of power. But the pillars of the liberal class— the press, universities, the labor movement, the Democratic Party, and liberal religious institutions—have collapsed. In its absence, the poor, the working class, and even the middle class no longer have a champion. ~ Chris Hedges

    Talk about Cognitive Dissonance! Either he (and many others) are completely ignorant or they have their head in the sand when it comes to who controls the media.

    The banker’s stake in CAGW

    World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
    The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020

    As you read this do not forget, GE is the world’s second largest company after J P Morgan Chase

    Paper by Stefania Vitali, James B. Glattfelder, Stefano Battiston

    The Network of Global Corporate Control

    A common intuition among scholars and in the media sees the global economy as being dominated by a handful of powerful transnational corporations (TNCs). However, this has not been confirmed or rejected with explicit numbers….

    The fact that control is highly concentrated in the hands of few top holders does not determine
    if and how they are interconnected. …
    We find that, despite its small size, the core holds collectively a large fraction of the total network control. In detail, nearly 4/10 of the control over the economic value of TNCs in the world is held, via a complicated web of ownership relations, by a group of 147 TNCs in the core, which has almost full control over itself. The top holders within the core can thus be thought of as an economic “super-entity” in the global network of corporations. A relevant additional fact at this point is that 3/4 of the core are financial intermediaries. Fig. 2 D shows a small subset of well-known financial players and their links, providing an idea of the level of entanglement of the entire core….

    This is the first time a ranking of economic actors by global control is presented. Notice that
    many actors belong to the financial sector (NACE codes starting with 65,66,67) and many of
    the names are well-known global players. The interest of this ranking is not that it exposes
    unsuspected powerful players. Instead, it shows that many of the top actors belong to the core.
    This means that they do not carry out their business in isolation but, on the contrary, they
    are tied together in an extremely entangled web of control. This finding is extremely important
    since there was no prior economic theory or empirical evidence regarding whether and how top players are connected….

    GE’s stake in CAGW

    Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room.
    …The basic truth is that Enron, joined by other “rent-seeking” industries — making one’s fortune from policy favors from buddies in government, the cultivation of whom was a key business strategy — cobbled their business plan around “global warming.” Enron bought, on the cheap of course, the world’s largest windmill company (now GE Wind) and the world’s second-largest solar panel interest (now BP) to join Enron’s natural gas pipeline network, which was the second largest in the world….

    Now on to control of the media

    U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947
    In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States.

    “These 12 men worked the problems out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country….

    JP Morgan: Our next big media player?
    If U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey today approves Tribune Co.’s reorganization plan, enabling it to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, New York-based banking giant JP Morgan Chase will become a significant media player, owning more television stations than any major network and becoming America’s second largest newspaper publisher….

    Judge OKs Tribune reorganization plan
    …Sources said the members of new ownership group, which also includes distressed-debt investor Angelo, Gordon & Co. and lender JPMorgan Chase & Co., are still mulling candidates for board seats and for chief executive….

    Comcast and GE Complete Transaction to Form NBCUniversal
    Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA; CMCSK) and General Electric (NYSE: GE) yesterday closed their transaction to create a joint venture… The new company is 51 percent owned by Comcast, 49 percent owned by GE,… J.P. Morgan was lead financial advisor to GE with Goldman Sachs and Citi acting as co-advisors….

    Press Release: Comcast and GE to Create Leading Entertainment Company
    …. NBCU has obtained $9.85 billion of committed financing through a consortium of banks led by J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, BofA Merrill Lynch and Citi….

    Stephen B. Burke is Comcast Corporation President

    …Before joining Comcast, Mr. Burke served with The Walt Disney Company as President of ABC Broadcasting…. Mr. Burke serves on the Board of Directors for Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co….

    http://www.comcast.com/nbcutransaction/pdfs/Bios%202.13.10.pdf

    Then there is GE Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt. Obama appointed Immelt as chair of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. The new council replaces the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. This would be hysterically funny if it was not so dangerous.

    Change Looks Quite Familiar
    …“You would have difficulty finding a company that has outsourced more jobs and closed more American factories than GE,” Scott Paul, Executive Director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing writes. “While they have slashed their American workforce to fewer than 150,000, GE has dramatically expanded its global presence, now employing over 300,000 workers worldwide.”

    Jeff Immelt has made it plan his loyalties are not with the USA.

    India is exciting for American businessmen today: Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman & CEO, GE
    ET Now caught up with Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman & CEO, GE, for his views on a number of issues, including the significance of 200 American CEOs landing on Indian soil, outsourcing and GE’s plans for India….
    I am a globalist. So I am a big believer that basically it is a win-win game of global trade. But strategically for the United States, a great relationship with India is a real prerequisite and very important and I believe the President sees it the same way…. America Inc, have been good partners to global business leaders for generations…. We know how to make money in India for our investors, but we are also a good citizen. We know how to make money for India by investing in the people and the resources….

  269. G says:

    Thank you for all your replies. I must say I was impressed by the civility and intelligence in most of their contents. I’m afraid as it’s Friday night I’ll be engaged for the evening so only have time for one decent reply, which I will choose to direct to @richardscourtney

    “I get my “information” from the IPCC and primary sources (i.e. published scientific papers).
    It seems that you get your information from propagandists.”
    Untrue sir. I check the source of all the important information I use to make up my mind. I get it all from scientific literature.

    “I know for certain fact that any putative anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is too small for it to be discernible.”
    Right here is your problem. ‘Certain fact’. There is no such thing. There are theorems, which are understood to be true, assuming previously accepted axioms. Then there are scientific theories which attempt to describe reality, which will NEVER be understood to be certain facts. They only get closer to the truth. That you can say unequivocally that AGW is negligible, calls into question your capacity for logical scrutiny – as well as your puzzling disregard for the viewpoint of the IPCC, which you previously stated is an organisation from which you get your information.

    CO2 has a significant effect on global temperature:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html
    http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/thumbs/1805c933-493c-4b85-be16-ad06eb342332/large/historical-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-and-temperature-on-a-geological-and-recent-time-scale_a210.jpg

    “There are no discernable effects of AGW.”
    Ocean acidity is rising faster than the past 300 million years (a very long time).
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120307145430.htm

    Glacier retreat:
    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-18.htm

    Sea level rise:
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL024826.shtml

    “GHGs are not “well above any natural average.”
    Yes they are. Significantly higher:
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

    “The world is not warming.”
    It is:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

    “Atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing in the atmosphere but it is not known – and cannot be known with present information – if that rise is natural or is a result of the anthropogenic CO2 emission.”
    It is:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/
    http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

    “There is no evidence of increased droughts and no evidence of increased floods.”
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1633.html
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JHM544.1
    http://fp.arizona.edu/kkh/hwrs/pdfs/trends/T-loster-Flood-Trends-summary-Reinsureance-Co.pdf

    “Arctic ice is floating so its melting does not increase sea level (try melting an ice cube in a glass of water and you will be able to observe that there is no change to the water level in the glass).”
    I am aware of this misunderstanding. However it is the land-based ice that is truly dangerous, and indeed melting. Land and sea based ice at both poles have melted, and have contributed to global sea level rise.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183

    “However, also please note that you have made a logical fallacy: a statement is not right merely because it is made by an authority.”
    I never said my statement was “right”, I just said where I got it from.

    “The public are being sold an untrue scare for reasons of personal interests by a wide variety of sources.”
    What is the more likely:
    -gigantic megacorporations are using their vast financial powers to influence global perception of climate change to preserve/increase profits
    or
    -the global scientific establishment are using their limited financial powers to influence global perception of climate change, in order to increase government funding for their scientific projects (and at no increase to their personal quality of life).

    I can tell you the first one is more likely, because it happened:
    http://www.econ.upf.edu/~lemenestrel/IMG/pdf/climatepolicy.pdf
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/30/us-oil-donated-millions-climate-sceptics
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon

    Now in conclusion, I will pose to you a logical problem of two dimensions. The first dimension is whether we make the transition to a low carbon economy, or carry on burning fossil fuels at their current rate. The second is our knowledge of whether climate change’s effects will be benign to us and our planet’s biosphere, or will cause catastrophic damage.

    Now I will give the four outcomes of those possibilities:

    We continue to burn fossil fuels, but it turns out to be benign. While the biosphere and our wellbeing is intact, we hit peak oil, and our economy grinds to a halt. There are massive economic and civil unrest, but nothing too bad.

    We make the transition to a low carbon economy, and it turns out climate change was benign anyway, and it turns out the majority of the comments on this page are correct – everyone was being sold a lie, and it was a lot of panic for nothing. Still, we have a low carbon economy, we’re no longer dependent on fossil fuels. Green economy produces jobs, so any economic negative effects are offset somewhat.

    We make the transition to a low carbon economy, and it turns out that climate change is very dangerous. We avoid most of the catastrophe, and have a newfound sense of responsibility about our planet. We are made aware of the dangers of ignoring scientific consensus above trusting (generally speaking) isolated individuals who are influenced by corporate powers.

    We do nothing, and climate change turns out to be very dangerous. Tens of millions of people are displaced. Food shortages. Resource conflicts. Runaway climate change caused by methane deposits. Nature hopefully stabilises, and some of humanity of hopefully left to rebuild.

    So, which is the most preferable pair of outcomes? Do we do something, or nothing?

    Thanks for reading.

  270. D Böehm says:

    G,

    There are no empirical measurements of AGW. It may well exist, but if so it is too small to measure, and therefore it can be disregarded for all practical purposes. Too much time, money and effort has been wasted chasing the AGW will o’ the wisp.

  271. Gail Combs says:

    Doug Allen says:
    December 13, 2012 at 2:31 pm
    ….For instance, you present no evidence for your claim that “President Obama is already pushing a carbon tax…”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The evidence is pretty obvious with 1,560,000 hits from a seach on President Obama “carbon tax” 2012
    Here are a couple in the top tier
    13 November 2012: Al Gore calls on Barack Obama to ‘act boldly’ on climate change Former vice-president and climate champion urges re-elected president to immediately begin pushing for a carbon tax

    According to one former member of the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Clinton, President Obama may have plans to implement a carbon tax as soon as the fiscal cliff negotiations are settled.

    Obama himself is a bit wishy-washy right now because he knows he does not have support but he makes it clear the issue is not going away.
    President Obama on a carbon tax

    ….And I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions. And as a consequence, I think we’ve got an obligation to future generations to do something about it….

    …we haven’t done as much as we need to. So what I’m going to be doing over the next several weeks, next several months, is having a conversation, a wide-ranging conversation with scientists, engineers and elected officials to find out what can — what more can we do to make short-term progress in reducing carbons, and then working through an education process that I think is necessary, a discussion, the conversation across the country….

    I don’t know what — what either Democrats or Republicans are prepared to do at this point,… There’s no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices….
    [Here is the golden nugget in the interview gc]
    I think the American people right now have been so focused and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth that, you know, if the message is somehow we’re going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don’t think anybody’s going to go for that.

    Q.It sounds like you’re saying, though — (off mic) — probably still short of a consensus on some kind of — (off mic).
    PRESIDENT OBAMA: I — that I’m pretty certain of. And look, we’re — we’re still trying to debate whether we can just make sure that middle-class families don’t get a tax hike. Let’s see if we can resolve that. That should be easy. This one’s hard. But it’s important because, you know, one of the things that we don’t always factor in are the costs involved in these natural disasters. We’d — we just put them off as — as something that’s unconnected to our behavior right now, and I think what, based on the evidence, we’re seeing is — is that what we do now is going to have an impact and a cost down the road if — if — if we don’t do something about it.

    The take home from that interview is:

    1. Obama has not changed his mind

    2. Obama realizes more propaganda is needed to brainwash the masses and the recalcitrant members of Congress so he is going to consult experts on how to manipulate them.

    3. Obama knows the masses are focused on a failing economy and a carbon tax would at this time be political suicide for those supporters in Congress.

    They already tried the Carbon Tax and got a creaming in the 2010 elections. As of November 30, 2010, there were at least 21 new senators and 65 new representatives.

    The issue has been buried for a little while but it is not at all dead and that is what is important for everyone to know.

  272. J Martin says:

    ” Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. “

    Saying that solar activity does not affect temperatures on Earth is the equivalent of saying that the bumblebee cannot fly since their calculations prove it can’t. Both are a denial of reality.

    TSI multiplied by an as yet undetermined cause of magnification can give an interesting match for past temperatures.

  273. Richard D says:

    Thanks WUWT and Skeptics! It took me a while to find you guys but I I did! I read hear every day. I’m just a guy with a good liberal arts education. What we hear is doom and gloom based on hysterical models and wishful thinking by some pretty sick people. But the science behind the hysteria seems weak or non-existent, No correlation. Falsified models. It’s Orwell’s 1984 living large. Thanks again.

  274. John Bills says:

    This counts:
    Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an (unknown) amplifying mechanism.

  275. Stephen Richards says:

    End of conversation. Richard Betts, Metoff climate impacts director says we should not worry it’s only a draft and will change before it is completed. There you go. So Don’t worry.

  276. Kev-in-Uk says:

    G says:
    ..So, which is the most preferable pair of outcomes? Do we do something, or nothing?..
    This is a policy issue, and not a scientific issue. Technically you could say the same thing about an asteroid strike, an earthquake (the SF big one?) or an alien invasion.
    In turn the response might be:
    1) to protect against an asteroid strike, we should all store food, dig caves, move away from coastlines (tsunamis) etc, etc – this will provide jobs for everyone!
    2) to protect against earthquakes we should move everyone away from earthquakes zones – this will provide jobs for everyone!
    3) to protect against alien invasion, we should invest in an extra terrestrial fleet of space ships equipped with laser cannon, photon torpedoes, etc, etc – this will provide jobs for everyone.

    …..notice a pattern here?

    Oh shit, what have I done – the UN will probably set up 3 more ‘panels’ to investigate these things…aargghh……

  277. Gail Combs says:

    Janef20 says:
    December 13, 2012 at 3:54 pm
    ….My interest has turned lately to looking for a link with Islam. It seems to me that environmentalism as an ideology is as significant a threat to Western Civ as Islam. So I am expecting there will be growing political links between the two…..
    _______________________________________
    You could start here with the Sultanate of Oman and Tony Blair’s close relationship to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi however I do not think Islam really enters into it except as a method for controlling the masses.

    …The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was established in the School of Environmental Sciences (ENV) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich in 1972.

    Acknowledgements
    This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):

    British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European CommunitiesCEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

  278. TRM says:

    ” Manfred says: December 13, 2012 at 5:35 pm
    solar-denier “.

    Okay you made me laugh. But seriously lets not sink to their level. “Solar Ignorant” would be my choice.

  279. Lawrie Ayres says:

    Shows there are still a few scientists with integrity. Shows there are still many without however. This could have been prevented if the funding was equally applied to all climate related science but the whole scam has prompted much needed research into an extremely complex issue. It’s such a pity good science has been so debased by advocates for political reasons. Here’s hoping more facts are exposed and the great con dies and with it those who currently keep it alive.

  280. E.M.Smith says:

    @Bittorrent Seeds:

    Please make sure you are using the newer version of the magnet link / seed files.

    krischel says:
    December 14, 2012 at 8:29 am

    points out that the new one included the summary. (that was missing in the first one).

    Looking at my Bittorrent client, I see 47 seeds on the old one and only 6 on the new one. ( I’m one of each). That means a lot of folks don’t have the new one (yet).

    I’m going to stop seeding the ‘old one’ fairly soon, but will be monitoring (and potentially nagging about it ;-) to see if too many folks are still seeding the old one without the summary in it.

    Now back to try slogging through the 282 comments that showed up while I was sleeping ;-)

  281. TRM says:

    ” G says: December 14, 2012 at 12:18 pm
    Now I will give the four outcomes of those possibilities:”

    You missed the most likely one. The government will force a carbon tax on people and pull more money out of the real economy to spend as they see fit on more Solyndra type investments and when the cold hits and stays proving AGW was dead wrong they will not apologize or refund anything. They will find another tax to levy on the people based on yet more lies.

  282. mpainter says:

    Tzo says: December 14, 2012 at 10:59 am

    “Untrue.The world is definitely warming. Your denialist overlords have already abandoned this line of argument”

    You are starting to sound somewhat shrill. Take a deep breath, relax, and pretend that you use your real name. That will improve the quality of your comments, and perhaps you then will be able to make a worthwhile contribution to the discussion.

  283. TonyG says:

    ignore – following comments

  284. zootcadillac says:

    @E.M.Smith I have the second one on my server ( though little action )

    I will continue to seed the first torrent that I made even though the later one from krischel seems to have been adopted. Not because I put the effort in after people asked for a torrent or because I’m stubborn and got there first so I’ll damn well keep it up ;) ( that is all in jest ) but because it’s there in the comments and it would be rude to stop seeding now.

    torrent available here.

    http://www.filedropper.com/ipccar5wg1draftzip

    magnet

    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:BB10555EC25DCA0C81F3E639AF72F5541670960F&dn=IPCC%20AR5%20WG1%20Draft.zip&tr=udp%3a//tracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80

  285. Gail Combs says:

    S Green says:
    December 13, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    How can it be claimed this is game-changing when the report is quite clear that the Sun cannot explain the observed warming?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It is the nose of the camel. At least clouds and cosmic rays and the fact TSI is not the only measure of the sun are mentioned. This is in sharp contrast to AR4

  286. Green Sand says:

    “An Incontinent Truth” that is relevant to the here and now:-

    The link below should take you to a chart showing the present (up to Oct 2012) HadCRUT4 trends for the last 10, 15 and 30 years.

    http://i49.tinypic.com/b3oifn.jpg

    The 10 year trend is slightly negative at -0.04 DegC/Decade
    The 15 year trend is slightly positive at +0.04 DegC/Decade
    The 30 year trend is significantly positive +0.16 Deg/C Decade, however this metric has, over the last 9 years, reduced by some approx 25% from the high of +0.20 DegC/Decade in Dec 2003.

    Also note the last time the 10 year trend was at this level was 1979 and the 15 year trend was last at its present level in 1980.

    Whilst the shorter 10 and 15 year trends will be more volatile than the longer WMO 30 year trend, they are indicative. Until the shorter trends break up through the longer trend the 30 year metric can only reduce further.

    The trend is your friend, keep an eye on the short term 10 & 15 year, they will indicate the eventual direction of the WMO 30 year trend.

    The numbers above can be checked using the “Least squares trend line; slope” facility at wood for trees.

    Eg – 10 year trend:-

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut4gl/last:120/trend

  287. Gail Combs says:

    commieBob says:
    December 13, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    …..Good news, ABC News had this three days ago…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Bad new the ABC continues the same old same old. The Sun and TSI are not mentioned.


    insiders say that thanks to faster computers and better models, the report will offer more precise predictions and adjust anticipated changes in sea levels and precipitation.

    …. In fact, these developments make what insiders say the IPCC’s message will be all the more astonishing: The new forecasts, they say, will be more or less the same as the old ones, just more precise.

    The scientists’ simulations show that if humans continue to emit the same amount of greenhouse gases into the air, the average global temperature will rise by an additional 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). The Earth has already grown warmer by about 1 degree Celsius over the last 100 years, making a total change of 3 degrees Celsius…..

    The IPCC is also expected to adjust the projected rise in sea levels slightly upward. The last assessment report predicted a fairly conservative range of 18 to 59 centimeters (7 to 23 inches). In retrospect, most oceanographers and glaciologists find that estimate too low and say it fails to adequately take into account data suggesting that mountain glaciers and Greenland’s continental ice will melt more quickly than initially predicted…..

    According to the models, subtropical regions, in particular, are expected to grow drier, with new arid zones appearing in the southern United States, South Africa and Mediterranean countries such as Greece, Italy and Spain. Real measurement data from the last 60 years, though, show no such trend toward aridity. Those regions do experience frequent dry periods, but not more often than they have in the past. One possible explanation is that the slight global warming that has occurred so far is not yet enough to cause observable changes in precipitation…..

  288. TonyG says:

    Trying again – for some reason I didn’t the the subscribe email.

  289. Gail Combs says:

    Harry van Loon says:
    December 13, 2012 at 9:03 pm

    But it will take take time to convince the faithful.
    __________________________________
    At this point I think it will take a mile of ice sitting on NYC and you would still have Al Gore claiming it is because of global warming.

  290. Gail Combs says:

    Total Mass Retain says:
    December 13, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    Perhaps the author should dust off his undergraduate thermodynamics textbooks and look up the term “thermal equilibrium”. He might then realise that comparing the Sun-Earth system with a pot heating on a stove is a rather stupid comparison. That rather undermines his credibility in interpreting this draft report.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No it does not.
    link 1 (Contains link to pdf of peer-reviewed paper)

    link 2 It was known in 1974 and forgotten. (aka shoved under the rug)

  291. Michael D Smith says:

    Yet another ever-vigilant VDOS* swoops in for the rescue… Thanks Alec!

    *Volunteer Defender of Science

  292. richardscourtney says:

    G:

    I am replying to your post at December 14, 2012 at 12:18 pm.

    It really saddens me that anybody could be so misled as you say you are about AGW.

    I wrote

    I know for certain fact that any putative anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is too small for it to be discernible.

    That is true. But you have replied

    Right here is your problem. ‘Certain fact’. There is no such thing. There are theorems, which are understood to be true, assuming previously accepted axioms. Then there are scientific theories which attempt to describe reality, which will NEVER be understood to be certain facts. They only get closer to the truth. That you can say unequivocally that AGW is negligible, calls into question your capacity for logical scrutiny – as well as your puzzling disregard for the viewpoint of the IPCC, which you previously stated is an organisation from which you get your information.

    Of course there are certain facts. For example, I am older today than I was yesterday.

    I gave you empirical measurements with links to the papers which present them.
    Those measurements are facts and their estimated confidence(s) are their certainty. Theories which fail to agree with empirical data are rejected or amended (this is called the ‘scientific method’).

    I said I get my information from the IPCC and source documents. Your lack of logical ability is demonstrated by your use of the logical fallacy of ‘Argument from Authority’ which you again present here concerning “the viewpoint of the IPCC” (despite my having told you of that fallacy). If the empirical data refutes their “viewpoint” then their “viewpoint” is wrong. I provided you with the empirical data: it shows the “viewpoint of the IPCC” is wrong.

    There is nothing “puzzling” in recognising an authority is wrong when the empirical data shows the authority is wrong.

    You say

    CO2 has a significant effect on global temperature:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html
    http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/thumbs/1805c933-493c-4b85-be16-ad06eb342332/large/historical-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-and-temperature-on-a-geological-and-recent-time-scale_a210.jpg

    No. Atmospheric CO2 concentration follows global temperature at all time scales. At present levels of atmospheric CO2 increases to the CO2 have no significant effect on global temperature.

    It seems you are unaware that the IR absorbtion of CO2 in the atmosphere is constrained to only two narrow bands with almost all being in the 15 micron band. These bands are so near to saturation that they only increase their absorbtion by band broadening.

    Think of light (i.e. visible radiation) entering a room through a window. If you put a layer of dark paint over the window then much light is absorbed by the paint and, therefore, does not enter the room. Add another layer of paint and more light is absorbed by that layer, but not as much as by the first layer. Similarly for each additional layer of paint.

    The IR emitted from the Earth’s surface is trying to pass the ‘window’ of the atmosphere to enter space. Adding more CO2 to the air is like adding more paint on the window that has seven layers of the paint. Each unit addition of CO2 has less absorbtion than the previous unit addition: this reducing effect is logarithmic.

    So, as the empirical measurements which I cited for you show, at present levels of atmospheric CO2 increases to the CO2 have no significant effect on global temperature.

    I said

    There are no discernible effects of AGW.

    That is true.

    You assert that

    Ocean acidity is rising faster than the past 300 million years (a very long time).
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120307145430.htm

    Frankly, that is ridiculous! The oceans are alkaline, not acidic.

    There is no possibility of having measured that variation of ocean pH from AGW and from increased atmospheric CO2 to anything like the required accuracy to know if it has varied at all.

    Also, I suspect you don’t know that a change to ocean surface layer pH (e.g. from undersea volcanic sulphur emissions)of an unmeasurably small 0.1 would have induced all the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution whether or not there were any anthropogenic CO2 emission. I doubt the sulphur change has happened, but that possibility alone refutes your assertion.

    You then assert as discernible effects of AGW “Glacier retreat” and “Sea level rise”. Those assertions are both wrong.

    The glaciers are retreating back to where they were in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), and their retreat is revealing human settlements that existed in the MWP. Humans had nothing to do with the cooling from the MWP to the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the warming from the LIA progressed for centuries before the industrial revolution.

    As I previously told you, there has been no acceleration to the rate of sea level rise which has existed for the last ten thousand years.

    I said

    GHGs are not “well above any natural average.

    And you have replied

    Yes they are. Significantly higher:
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

    Sorry, but you are wrong. You need to define what is a “natural average”, then read the source which you cite, and then compare the two.

    Incidentally, I cited to you a paper I co-authored which uses that source for its data so I am very familiar with it.

    I said

    The world is not warming.

    And you have replied by citing the laughable GISS compilation saying

    It is:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

    That data set is severely corrupted by unexplained ‘adjustments’.

    Anyway, the draft IPCC AR5 shows the lack of warming over the last 16 years which I stated. Have a look at the new WUWT thread to see the lack of warming shown by the draft IPCC AR5
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/

    I said

    Atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing in the atmosphere but it is not known – and cannot be known with present information – if that rise is natural or is a result of the anthropogenic CO2 emission.

    And I cited a peer reviewed study of which I was a co-author.

    Your grossly offensive reply makes no mention of our study and says

    It is:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/
    http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

    Assertions from a climate porn blog and a circular argument based on isotope studies which do not mention my work are NOT a justification for rejecting my work.

    The rest of your assertions are equally fallacious but your gross insult to my work has enraged me such that I can’t be bothered to refute them. However, you ask me a political question which demonstrates your motivation so I will answer that.

    You assert and ask me

    We make the transition to a low carbon economy, and it turns out that climate change is very dangerous. We avoid most of the catastrophe, and have a newfound sense of responsibility about our planet. We are made aware of the dangers of ignoring scientific consensus above trusting (generally speaking) isolated individuals who are influenced by corporate powers.

    We do nothing, and climate change turns out to be very dangerous. Tens of millions of people are displaced. Food shortages. Resource conflicts. Runaway climate change caused by methane deposits. Nature hopefully stabilises, and some of humanity of hopefully left to rebuild.

    So, which is the most preferable pair of outcomes? Do we do something, or nothing?

    There is no evidence for the AGW-hypothesis; none, zilch, nada. All we have are computer model simulations which are known to be wrong.

    But we do know what “transition to a low carbon economy” means. It requires reduction to fossil fuel usage which would kill billions of people, mostly children. This would pale into relative insignificance the combined activities of H1tler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

    The Precautionary Principle decrees that we should NOT take actions which would kill billions of people on the basis of a hypothesis which has no supporting evidence and merely because it has been described using computer games.

    Richard

  293. EcoFascist Science says:

    The rush is now on for the next bogus geoengineering boondoggle, blocking out the sun.

    How long before the obligatory “it’s worse than we thought” melting hockey stick appears?

    How long before Solar Trading replaces Carbon Trading?

    One thing is certain the public at large will be paying for “hot air” for centuries to come.

  294. zootcadillac says:

    I’m really quite disappointed at the number of drive-bys here recently. As someone who won’t accept the global warming mantra I can often be discouraged by the persistent abuse, be it in the small form ‘science-denier’ or the worse ‘Big oil shill’ and up to ‘you are killing our grandchildren’ but I keep heart that the observation will continue to diverge from the prediction and someone will eventually shout loud enough… “but he’s not wearing any clothes”.

    It’s a shame that here at WUWT that people feel the need to pipe up with their opinions and comments yet when met with polite responses that might counter their argument they fail to return.
    Scepticism is the very foundation of science. If you are not sceptical you can’t be a scientist. If you have a position be prepared to debate it and be prepared to accept that you may be wrong. I’ve done that all my life and it’s likely the primary reason I’ve ended up here in rare conversation with people much better educated than I.

    I might have to lay off the posting tonight though. Comments may start to ramble as I’ve had a few hot toddies to combat the manflu ;)

  295. Ryan says:

    Perhaps someone can help me understand Rawls’ theory a bit better. He says that the recent high level of solar magenetic activity has caused the atmosphere to heat, akin to a stove on high heating water gradually. However, my impression is the emperical evidence for the relationship between solar magnetic activity and atmospheric temperature is a correlation between their short term fluctuations. This seems contradictory to me, that the system could at the same time both quickly equilibriate to solar magentic activity changes, and equilibriate very slowly.

    I think either: 1) I’m really misunderstanding the argument or 2) the theory needs to assert that two unique processes are invilved, one which responds to magnetic activity quickly, and another which responds slowly.

  296. Lars P. says:

    oldseadog says:
    December 13, 2012 at 12:41 pm
    The chapters take AGES to load and no MSM reporter is going to wait to read them unless they are already sceptical, and we know how few of those there are.
    Also there is no “e-mail” link at the end here and I don’t know how to forward this post to a newspaper news desk any other way.

    oldseadog, not sure I understand the issue. I simply use to mark the line up in the browser, copy it with pressing control-C and paste it in the mail “like this below” with control-V:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/
    not sure if I am telling a very simple stupid thing and missed your question…

    William says:
    December 14, 2012 at 10:34 am
    I must admit, to becoming interested, in the political and propaganda posturing by the extreme AGW movement and the IPCC.
    The skeptics, it appears have scientific analysis. observations, and solar change on our side.

    How will the general public response and what will be the US government response when it becomes obvious that the IPCC and hundreds of climate scientists where absolutely incorrect, that the science was manipulated?

    It’s about time to come, the gravy train has gone long enough, each doomsday religion fades with the time.

    BillD says:
    December 14, 2012 at 10:09 am
    So, the author, Dr. Sheffield, completely disagrees with Mr Rawls as to the meaning of what he wrote. In the summary of Chapter 7, one can read that the effects of variation in solar radiation are negligible
    You seem to miss the whole point.: “The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is.”

    Antwerpenaar says:
    December 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm
    Usual self-serving claptrap. I’m a European taxpayer, and I didn’t actually want the report early – I wanted it issued in a controlled fashion, properly presented. But then we Europeans don’t matter, do we?
    hm, dear Antwerpenaar, how comes you talk in the name of “the europeans” and not your name? And besides, what stops you from reading the report one year later when it will come to you “in a controlled fashion” and let the others see more detail now if they want to? You do not have to click the link and read? or was somebody behind you as explained above pushing you to click next so you had to read all in a disorganised way?

    William says:
    December 14, 2012 at 7:02 am
    William, thank you for the post. It is actually one of the features I love at WUWT to have posts commenting the blog post that add a lot of value to the discussion, many time more valuable that other fulll blog posts elsewhere.
    In your post you speak of a 1470 years cycle, whereas in the interview linked Sebastian Lüning speaks of a superposition of a 1000 years cycle and a 2300 years cycle which could give the statistical effect of a 1500 years cycle.
    Can you elaborate more on this?

  297. AndyG55 says:

    It’s going to be fun watching how they try the justify these reports when the temperature starts to drop over the next several years, due to LACK of solar activity.

    I still haven’t seen any decent explanation for the levelling off of temperatures over the past 12-16 years, despite accelerated world wide CO2 emissions.

    What could possible be strong enough to counteract this massive CO2 forcing?

  298. Fred Nietzsche says:

    Kev_in_UK says that you don’t need a degree to think. That is correct and so is the fact that people without degrees can think; I wonder if this includes environmentalists. The IPCC is basically political organisation and in all politics brain-food is consumed, masticated, digested and then re-emerges as excrement. Unfortunately, this is true for many areas of life and knowledge. Most people tend to believe what they are told rather than actually think about things, this is just the way of the world. How many bloggers, scientists (especially chemists) question their motives and their preconceptions when choosing sides in debates. James Lovelock (a religious chemist) in his Gaia books clearly indicate his preconceptions for those that can read between the lines but yet many people, especially greenies including some scientists, will love what he says and ignore the philosophy behind what he says. Many of the bloggers on this, and many other issues, have biases that colour their judgements; our egos tell us we know best. True impartiality is a condition that seems to be restricted to a very few number of people but I think that it can be taught to others. People should question what they are told but most don’t. One example I like was a relatively recent explanation of why the Earth was warming and why the temperatures in winter were lower than average; the reason was apparently that an ocean warmer than the atmosphere above was taking heat out of the atmosphere resulting in cooler winter temperatures. Yet I know one physicist (also a member of the Australian Greens Party) that could not see what is wrong the above explanation. Debates like this brings out those that are religiously minded (dogmatic) rather than those that are scientifically minded (open minded – whether classically trained or not.

    Kev, I think that the Earth has been warming slightly over the last few decades and also that soon (sooner rather than later) the Earth will drastically cool. In all this time, temperatures will vary. But then again, what do I know? I am just a bricklayer – with a B. Sc.

    “Everywhere astral (environmental) hippiness as primitive as Australopithecus panders to some dead-head’s wishes, next we’ll be back burning witches.” – Would the last person to leave please turn out the enlightenment – T.I.S.M. De Rigueurmortis.

  299. AndyG55 says:

    EcoFascist Science says
    “The rush is now on for the next bogus geoengineering boondoggle, blocking out the sun.”

    Now why would they want to do that when the sun has no influence on the world’s temperature ?????

  300. mfo says:

    It’s probably worth mentioning the work of the highly respected Dr Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia who also heads the Russian-Ukrainian project “Astrometria” on the Russian part of the International Space Station.

    His hypothesis is that “long-term variations in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth are the main and principal reasons driving and defining the whole mechanism of climatic changes from the global warmings to the Little Ice Ages to the big glacial periods”, not carbon dioxide.

    He has also shown that “the long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars”.
    Dr Abdussamatov has predicted that the reduction in sunspots will reach a minimum in 2042, and temperatures will begin to fall in 2014 culminating in the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years, beginning in 2055±11.

    In a paper published in February this year Dr Abdussamatov concluded that “we can expect the onsetof a deep bicentennial minimum of TSI in approximately 2042±11 and of the 19th deep minimum of global temperature in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11 (Fig. 4).

    “In the nearest future we will observe a transition (between global warming and global cooling) period of unstable climate changes with the global temperature fluctuating around its maximum value reached in 1998-2005.

    “After the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect the start of the next bicentennial cycle of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055±11. Thus, long-term variations of TSI (with account for their direct and secondary, based on feedback effects, influence) are the main fundamental cause of climate changes since variations of the Earth climate is mainly determined by a long-term imbalance between the energy of solar radiation entering the upper layers of the Earth’s atmosphere and the total energy emitted from the Earth back to space.”
    http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754/10140

    Given the recent lack of warming this prediction is on course to being realised and poses a far greater threat to humanity than the hopelessly flawed CAGW hypothesis ever did.

  301. pat says:

    O/T but related:

    14 Dec: UK Telegraph Blog: Tom Chivers: Climate, economics and predictions: the only certainty is that nothing’s certain
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100194356/the-only-certainty-is-that-nothings-certain/

  302. Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
    This is huge. Consider this key sentence: “The (climate) forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.” In other words, an admission that there’s likely a solar role in climate beyond direct heating from the sun, such as Svensmark’s theory about the relation between the solar wind, cosmic rays, and cloud formation. This should be a body blow to the man-caused global warming crowd. Do read the whole thing.

  303. E.M.Smith says:

    @richardscourtney:

    I, in fact, use that “reflection of self” in figuring out what the other side thinks and does. It’s remarkably effective. So, for example, Tzo talks about the “overlords”. Lets see, which side has overlords? The “self organizing system of individuals” of the rabble (said endearingly) of the skeptics? Or the UN / EU / IPCC / NSF driven top down central authority based AGW crowd? Hmmmm?

    So just listen to their rants, then use two tools:

    1) Reflective assessment. What do they accuse the other of doing? that is likely what THEY do or what they are experiencing. It is the social norm they have internalized.

    2) Negative Space evaluation: What is not said. That is where they have fear. (Oddly, what is denied most loudly is often also a fear point, so there is a ‘barbell’ to the negative space to also look for). Take, for example, the way The Sun gets “disappeared” from the reports… and nearly no mention of long cycle historical events (Bond, D.O., LIA / MWP / Roman Optimum,…)

    It can’t be helped, and both sides do it. Unfortunately for the Skeptics side, our “Reflective” reflex is to expect them to do honest science driven from facts and data to logical conclusions. We repeatedly look for it, and when they don’t respond, we are befuddled by their lack of caring about what WE value as our social norm. So when someone repeatedly makes disasters, don’t be befuddled by that, expecting them to work for the “right and good”… expect them to be thinking that they WANT disasters. “Never let a disaster go to waste”….

    Interesting to me is the huge frequency with which warmers accuse skeptics of lying… (See #1)…

    And acting from political motivations… (See #1)…

    And being in the pay of powerful lobbies / “overlords”… (See #1)…

    And NEVER discuss the huge government driven funding machine for them… (See #2)…

    In that light, it makes perfect sense that they REPEATEDLY assert censorship here, on WUWT, despite a flood of comments from “Warmistas” (hard core warming advocates) and even sporadic flat out trolls. Posted for years for anyone to see… Despite the repeated statements about the moderation policy being what is stated in the box at the top of the page ( i.e. tone and legalities based, not belief and POV based – essentially don’t be an ass and don’t post things that get folks sued, and stay close to the topic of the thread…) Makes perfect sense in the context of #1… And the well documented repeated purging of any comment on most warmist blogs that has to do with things they want left “unsaid” makes a whole lot of sense now in the context of #2.

    You see, skeptics don’t fear the truth, and real science does not fear “the counter argument” no matter how flaky. So we don’t see any reason to delete warmers POV / argument. Dispute them, yes. Delete? Why on earth delete something that looks so silly from the other side? And if I’m wrong and someone shows a better way, well, that’s called progress. All for it.

    But if you are on a Government Dole via NSF or UN funding and MUST toe the party line to keep the good times rolling, a truth that is contrary to that “need” must be excised and attacked. ONLY the “approved” propaganda can be “up”. (As propaganda depends on quantity and repetition… The truth just needs to be heard by a thinking mind…) So truthful questions and truthful evidence and truthful doubts and truthful counter points are attacked, vilified (usually ‘attack the messenger’), deleted, and drowned out in a flood of non-sequitur and appeal to authority arguments… (Another useful tool, btw, is just to measure the number of Logical Fallacies vs correct logical syllogisms … the more LF the more it’s propaganda… the more correct logical syllogisms, data included btw, the less propaganda and the more honest science… but I haven’t named that thought tool yet… Perhaps the LF Ratio? Also need an ‘emotional plea’ vs ‘logical syllogism’ metric…. Perhaps Emoto-Spock ratio? ;-)

    I find these tools help keep me, personally, centered and aware. To keep a ‘tidy mind’ and not be pulled off into silly propaganda wars…

    @Zootcadillac:

    Well, I’ve kept the first one up, too, but reduced the priority in the queue. Yes, it is polite, but the full one (with ‘summary pdf’) is to be preferred, so hopefully you are seeding both…

    Why do you keep running into folks asserting that you cherry pick a past date to make a trend that can only be measured from the present backwards to the zero slope points?

    I would assert it is ‘willful ignorance for effect’… See #2 above. They must blind themselves to the realty of how the data are measured, properly, and then make a non-sequitur argument “for effect” in order to have the “repetitions” needed by propaganda techniques. The argument need not be valid, only “plausible” to the “useful idiots’ that are the target of propaganda. In fact, the “simple but wrong” is better for such use than the “complex but right”. (That’s another thing I watch for BTW, the repeated and deliberate use of “SBW” and the avoidance of “CBR”… so “greenhouse”, despite being a broken metaphor and “Superstorm Sandy” instead of ‘not quite a hurricane and less powerful than those in recorded history; plus, a midget compared to what’s seen in the non-historical geologic record of the sand bars.”

    Basically, it pays to study how propaganda techniques work, and then you can understand why some “illogical” things are done.

    BTW, many of the folks parroting the “broken stuff” are not crafty propagandists. They will mostly be ‘true believers’ from the ‘useful idiot’ cohort. (That’s one of the propaganda techniques, btw, Dear Leader only presents the ‘package’ to the masses. Never debates it. You end up debating with a million tape recorders on playback… which doesn’t change the mind of 999,000 of them and wastes a lot of your effort… ) So if you accuse them of being propagandists or of telling Tall tales, they will be offended and call you names and be Righteously Indignant. See, they don’t know they are being spun up and used… And nobody likes it when you tell them they are a bit daft, and their baby is ugly…

    Just the way it is…

    What can you do about it? I don’t have a good answer for the Self Organizing System that is a liberty and individual based structure. Just keep pointing out the truth and looking to add thinking honest folks to the ‘self organization’ via being polite and rational, I guess.

    @Gail Combs:

    Nice list ;-)

    Folks forget that the “Third Way Socialism” of the National Socialists and the American Progressives involved the collaboration with and central authority direction of large corporations. The suppression of “small business” in favor of the large corporations that could be controlled better from the center….

    The only proper axis for evaluating things (that keeps things clear) is simple:
    Central Authority and Control vs. Distributed liberty and control.

    Once you use that axis, it all ‘fits’ nicely. There is NO conflict between “Third Way Socialism” and “Corporatism”. In fact, it LOVES “Big Business”. What it despises is a gaggle of free independent small businesses …

    Big Business of course loves this too. Who wouldn’t like a government guaranteed monopoly or coordinated “regulated” oligopoly? Who wouldn’t like the stamping out of all those unpredictable small competitors with their ‘disruptive technology’ and innovation / competition? The forces of “creative destruction” are not welcomed in large organizations…

    @Richard D:

    You are most welcome! (Now pick up a shovel and help us shovel, all that ‘stuff’ that’s been thrown at us, out of the way ;-)

    @Green Sand:

    You wouldn’t happen to be familiar with using MACD in stock charts would you? ;-)

    (Moving Average Convergence Divergence. Uses 2 different moving average periods of time and looks at their relationship to figure out inflections…)

    @Ryan:

    The answer to your question is about one large book long! But I’ll try to condense it (with some loss of fidelity…). Realize, though, that the “sun did it!” thesis is not proven.

    Short term, things do warm and cool in hours. That is highly visible in the desert. Way hot days. Way cold nights. Key is to realize it’s the amount of water over your head that matters. In the desert, nearly none. (In Florida, a few tons ;-)

    Now look at the ocean. Incoming infrared and some long wave visible light gets absorbed into the surface rapidly. (Due to this, just a few feet down, things start to look blue, eventually ending up a a black and white color pallet.) Blue light and ultra violet go far deeper.

    So one immediate factor is the color of the sunlight. Right now, UV has dropped and we’ve got more visible / red. So more surface layer evaporation, less deep ocean direct heating. How long does it take for a very small increase of UV to warm the deep? I don’t know, but ‘a long time’ of continued warming. How long does it take to have that warmed water “overturn” and dump heat once the deep heating light drops off? A long time…

    Using the “pot of water” metaphor: Imaging a swimming pool and you have a small heater keeping it just a bit above the air temperature. Now someone adds, or takes away, one candle worth of added heating. It will take a LONG time for that change to be completely reflected in the pool due to the mass size relative to the heating change. ( And in that example for all practical purposes it would be lost in changes of air flow et. al…. so put your swimming pool in a giant thermos bottle ;-)

    The other (and IMHO larger) factor is ocean current changes and overturning currents. It can take a few thousand years for some water at the bottom of the ocean to be circulated back to the top. It can take centuries for a top layer of warm to become a few dozen feet deeper, or shallower. Yet winds and ENSO can do this in months / years scale (and have large effect in weeks). So solar impacts on oceans via wind changes can be fast at the surface. Yet you still must then deal with the heat capacity of that water in the long run.

    Finally, to the extent the sun does change cloud cover, that directly modulates the input to the above list. Response time in minutes. (Flame turned up or down under the pot). Yet the pot is very very large and can take decades to finish moving… So we end up with rapid changes of air temperature sometimes in response to sun modulation; but longer term changes in sea temperature and a ‘lag time’ from that showing up in longer slower air temperature change.

    Hope that helps.

  304. mpainter says:

    Some prior remarks by IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri:

    “The IPCC is a totally transparent organization…Whatever we do is available for scrutiny at every stage.” – magazine interview, May 2009

    “The objective and transparent manner in which the IPCC functions…should convey conviction on the strength of its findings to all rational persons…” – testimony to a US Senate committee, February 2009

    “[The IPCC's] work is carried out with complete transparency and objectivity…” – speech to heads of state, December 2008

    “So you can’t think of a more transparent process…than what we have in the IPCC. I would only put that forward as valid reasons to accept the science and the scientific assessments that are carried out.” – newspaper interview, June 2007

    These quotes posted by Anthony Watts in his reply above to a particularly nasty spitballer.

    These quotes prove conclusively that Alec Rawls, in his release of AR5, has carried out stated IPCC policy of maintaining transparency, which policy had evidently been subverted. Anyone familiar with the IPCC can understand how such subversion could occur. Characterizing Rawl’s dutiful and conscientious act as a “leak” is to misapply that word. In fact, there is no doubt that Rajendra Pachauri should publicly commend Alec Rawls for restoring the lapsed transparency which his public statements have so indisputably avowed as official IPCC policy, assuming,of course, that Pachauri meant what he said. Let’s see what happens.

  305. Green Sand says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    December 14, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    @Green Sand:

    You wouldn’t happen to be familiar with using MACD in stock charts would you? ;-)

    (Moving Average Convergence Divergence. Uses 2 different moving average periods of time and looks at their relationship to figure out inflections…)

    Yes, sir, known as “maccy-de” and I have an inbuilt slant to belt an braces hence 3 trends minimum. Plus I am aware that the lighter the colour of the tie the more food it will attract!

  306. Gail Combs says:

    Glenn Tamblyn says: @ December 14, 2012 at 2:35 am

    For anyone who is interested….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Thanks,

    I took your information and annotated a version with the numbers and with links (I have not check all of them)

    Impact of Cosmic Rays on Aerosols and Clouds

    High solar activity leads to variations in the strength and three-dimensional structure of the heliosphere, which reduces the flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) impinging upon the Earth’s atmosphere by increasing the deflection of low energy GCR. As GCR is the primary source of atmospheric ionization, it has been suggested that GCR may act to amplify relative small variations in solar activity into climatologically significant effects (Ney, 1959),
    http://www.swsc-journal.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/swsc/full_html/2012/01/swsc120049/swsc120049.html#R59

    via a hypothesised relationship between ionization and cloudiness (e.g., Dickinson, 1975;
    http://www.swsc-journal.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/swsc/full_html/2012/01/swsc120049/swsc120049.html#R13

    Kirkby, 2007).
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1938

    There have been many studies aiming to test this hypothesis since AR4, which fall in two categories:
    i) studies that seek to establish a causal relationship between cosmic rays and aerosols/clouds by looking at correlations between the two quantities on timescales of days to decades, and studies that test through observations or modeling one of the physical mechanisms that have been put forward. We assess these two categories of studies in the next two sections.

    Correlations Between Cosmic Rays and Properties of Aerosols and Clouds

    Order Draft Chapter 7 IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report
    Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 7-44 Total pages: 139

    Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope 1 archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001;
    http://www.swsc-journal.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/swsc/full_html/2012/01/swsc120049/swsc120049.html#R4

    Dengel et al., 2009;
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03026.x/full

    Ram and Stolz, 1999).
    http://www.swsc-journal.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/swsc/full_html/2012/01/swsc120049/swsc120049.html#R70

    The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties. Such relationships have focused on decadal variations in GCR induced by the 11-year solar cycle, shorter variations associated with the quasi-periodic oscillation in solar activity centred on 1.68 years or sudden and large variations known as Forbush decrease events. It should be noted that GCR co-vary with other solar parameters such as solar and UV irradiance, which makes any attribution of cloud changes to GCR problematic (Laken et al., 2011).
    http://www.swsc-journal.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/swsc/full_html/2012/01/swsc120049/swsc120049.html#R45

    Some studies have shown co-variation between GCR and low-level cloud cover using global satellite data over periods of typically 5–10 years (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000;
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.5004

    Pallé Bagó and Butler, 2000).
    http://www.swsc-journal.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/swsc/full_html/2012/01/swsc120049/swsc120049.html#R64

    Such correlations have not proved to be robust when extending the time period under consideration (Agee et al., 2012),
    http://www.swsc-journal.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/swsc/full_html/2012/01/swsc120049/swsc120049.html#R1

    restricting the analysis to particular cloud types (Kernthaler et al., 1999)
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/showciting?cid=2822867

    or locations (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001;
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2000GL012659.shtml

    Usoskin and Kovaltsov, 2008).
    http://www.swsc-journal.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/swsc/full_html/2012/01/swsc120049/swsc120049.html#R93 or http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/usoskin_CR_2008.pdf

    The purported correlations have also been attributed to ENSO variability (Farrar, 2000;
    http://www.swsc-journal.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/swsc/full_html/2012/01/swsc120049/swsc120049.html#R21 or http://www.biokurs.de/eike/daten/Solar_i_harrison2006.pdf

    Laken et al., 2012)
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012JD017626 or http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/604447.SWSC_2012.pdf

    and artefacts of the satellite data cannot be ruled out (Pallé, 2005).
    http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/WhatsNew.pdf

    Statistically significant, but weak, correlations between diffuse fraction and cosmic rays have been found at some locations in the UK over the 1951 to 2000 period (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006).
    http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/462/2068/1221.full

    Harrison (2008)
    http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2098/2575.full.pdf

    also found a unique 1.68-year periodicity in surface radiation for two different UK sites between 1978 and 1990, potentially indicative of a cosmic ray effect. Svensmark et al. (2009)
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/svensmark-forebush.pdf

    found large global reductions in the aerosol Ångström exponent from AERONET, liquid water path from SSM/I, and cloud cover from MODIS and ISCCP after large Forbush decreases, but these results were not corroborated by other studies who found no statistically significant links between GCR and clouds at the global scale (Čalogović et al., 2010;
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL049764.shtml

    Kristjánsson et al., 2008;
    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7373/2008/acp-8-7373-2008.pdf

    Laken and Čalogović, 2011).
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL049764.shtml

    Although some studies found small but significant positive correlations between GCR and high- and mid-altitude clouds (Laken et al., 2010;
    http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/18235/2010/acpd-10-18235-2010.pdf

    Rohs et al., 2010),
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012608.shtml

    these variations were very weak, and the results were highly sensitive to how the Forbush events were selected and composited (Laken et al., 2009).
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040961.shtml

    7.4.5.2 Physical Mechanisms Linking Cosmic Rays to Cloudiness

    The most widely studied mechanism proposed to explain the possible link between GCR and cloudiness is the “ion-aerosol clear air” mechanism, in which atmospheric ions produced by GCR facilitate aerosol nucleation and growth ultimately impacting CCN concentrations and cloud properties (Carslaw et al., 2002;
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5599/1732.abstract

    Usoskin and Kovaltsov, 2008).
    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/usoskin_CR_2008.pdf

    The variability of atmospheric ionization rates due to GCR changes can be considered relatively well quantified (Bazilevskaya et al., 2008),
    http://ccc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/SSR_Baz_2008.pdf

    whereas resulting changes in aerosol nucleation rates are very poorly known (Enghoff and Svensmark, 2008;
    http://www.mendeley.com/research/role-atmospheric-ions-aerosol-nucleation-review/
    Kazil et al., 2008).
    http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/1322/

    The Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment at CERN indicates that GCR-induced ionization enhances water–sulphuric acid nucleation in the middle and upper troposphere, but is very unlikely to give a significant contribution to nucleation taking place in the continental boundary layer (Kirkby et al., 2011).
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10343

    Field measurements qualitatively support this view but cannot provide any firm conclusion on the role of ions due to the scarcity and other limitations of free-troposphere measurements (Arnold, 2006;
    http://zardoz.nilu.no/~andreas/publications/114.pdf

    Mirme et al., 2010),
    http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/11251/2010/acpd-10-11251-2010.html

    and due to difficulties in separating GCR-induced nucleation from other nucleation pathways in continental boundary layers (Hirsikko et al., 2011).
    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/767/2011/acp-11-767-2011.pdf

    If strong enough, the signal from GCR-induced nucleation should be detectable at the Earth’s surface because a big fraction of CCN in the global boundary layer is expected to originate from nucleation taking place in the free troposphere (Merikanto et al., 2009).
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012136.shtml

    Based on surface aerosol measurements at one site, Kulmala et al. (2010)
    http://www.physi.uni-heidelberg.de/Veranstaltungen/Vortraege/Abstract-Kulmala.pdf

    found no connection between GCR and new particle formation or any other aerosol property over a solar cycle (1996–2008). Our understanding of the “ion-aerosol clear air” mechanism as a whole relies on a few model investigations that simulate GCR changes over a solar cycle (Kazil et al., 2012;
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050058

    Pierce and Adams, 2009a;
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009GL037946

    Snow-Kropla et al., 2011)
    http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-4001-2011

    or during strong Forbush decreases (Bondo et al., 2010;
    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/2765/2010/acp-10-2765-2010.pdf

    Snow-Kropla et al., 2011).
    http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-4001-2011

    Although all model studies found a detectable connection between GCR variations and either CCN changes or column aerosol properties, the response appears to be too weak to cause a significant radiative effect because GCR are unable to effectively raise CCN and droplet concentrations (Kazil et al., 2012).
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050058

    A second pathway linking GCR to cloudiness has been proposed through the global electric circuit (GEC). A small direct current is able to flow vertically between the ionosphere (maintained at approximately 250 kV by thunderstorms and electrified clouds) and the Earth’s surface over fair-weather regions because of GCRSecond

    Order Draft Chapter 7 IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report
    Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute 7-44 Total pages: 139

    induced atmospheric ionization. Charges can accumulate at the upper and lower cloud boundaries 1 as a result of the effective scavenging of ions by cloud droplets (Tinsley, 2000).
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014580

    This creates conductivity gradients at the cloud edges (Nicoll and Harrison, 2010),
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043605

    and may influence droplet-droplet collision (Khain et al., 2004),
    http://www.swsc-journal.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/swsc/full_html/2012/01/swsc120049/swsc120049.html#InR34

    cloud droplet-particle collisions (Tinsley, 2000),
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2000)057

    and cloud droplet formation processes (Harrison and Ambaum, 2008).
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2008.0009

    These microphysical effects may potentially influence cloud properties both directly and indirectly. Although Harrison and Ambaum (2010)
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2010.09.025

    observed a small reduction in downward LW radiation which they associated with variations in surface current density, supporting observations are extremely limited. Our current understanding of the relationship between cloud properties and the GEC remains very low, and there is no evidence yet that associated cloud processes could be of climatic significance.

    7.4.5.3 Synthesis

    Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012;
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00169.1

    McCracken and Beer, 2007)
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JA012117.shtml
    provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.

  307. Green Sand says:

    Just in case Germany’s new 20+ coal fired (German built) powered power stations can’t keep Das Autos rolling:-

    “German Lawmakers Reject Ban on Shale-Gas Fracking in Parliament”

    “Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government won votes that will permit fracking to continue in Germany, saying the technique may help the country’s energy supply security. ”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-13/german-lawmakers-reject-ban-on-shale-gas-fracking-in-parliament.html

    Das Kraut will never, never, ever, jeopardise Das Autos!

    Enjoy your life in the free world, it is the only life you have!

  308. Kev-in-Uk says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    December 14, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    responding to the time lag in climate issues. Some years ago, I explained it to my 16yr old daughter using an analogy of the living room in our house. we have an electric fire, a central heating radiator, lights, TV, laptops, an entrance door, and some opening windows and curtains!.
    Envisage these as variables of heat input and heat loss. We all know what happens when someone opens the closed door and cool air rushes in, you feel a draft, unless you are sat by the fire – and after a while it warms back up again when the door shuts. Then, think of having slightly open windows for ventilation – which you adjust when the room gets too warm or too cold, or if the wind starts to blow straight in the window opening, etc. then at night you pull the curtains (cloud cover?) and reduce heat loss through the window….etc, etc.
    The point I was trying to make, was that with only these few variables, you can have lots of temperature variation caused by relatively small changes in one of the parameters and depending on the scale of the changes, or the coincidence of one or more changes acting together, or even opposing each other, the readjustment time of the temperature in the room would vary. If you then gave someone else a set of data from a dozen or so temperature sensors in that room, over a period of time (weeks/years, etc) – Imagine, starting blind, with just the data, how would they be able to work out which parameters had been changed according to the temp data only? and why? – what random or semi random events occurred during the timeseries (e.g. someone leaving/entering the room)? This is just considering a bloody ROOM!
    Now – scale this up to the Earths biosphere – and tell me how realistically anyone can be sure of what the heck is going on with the climate – and more importantly what/who is causing the observed changes………
    I am not really much of a fan of analogies, but when scale is involved, they can be quite useful.
    regards
    Kev

  309. Bill H says:

    “This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.”

    LOL

    Climategate continues….

  310. Dennis Jaques says:

    Thank goodness the debate about major climate controlling factors is back on the front burner and scientific truth will prevail over the lunacy of carbon taxing the industrialized countries! After release of the Feb. 2007, I (as a plant ecologist since 1966) analyzed N. American climate station data to see if the doom-and-gloom of runaway anthropogenic global warming that report “warned” us about was true. I quickly saw the weakness of their treatment (i.e. lack thereof) of land-based stations for the urban heat island effect (UHIE). My data clearly showed that since about 1997 our climate in N. America had been stabilized and cooled somewhat for 10 years. In addition, proper UHIE corrections showed clearly that the warming period from 1921 – 1941 was actually somewhat warmer than the more recent warm period! I gave these data (and Henrick Svensmark’s well-proven hypothesis of climate controlling mechanisms) to my wife who teaches high school English. She presented these data in a “critical thinking” curriculum she had developed. After her presentations she was mobbed by grateful young adults who had been duped into a state of fear. Shame on those who have jumped to conclusions without proper scientific analyses!

  311. Rob Dawg says:

    IPCC I, II, III, and IV are wrong. We apologize for having caused the unnecessary expenditures of billions and as partial apology have refunded all monies spent over this last generation of misguided and now discredited climate science advocacy.

  312. Bill H says:

    Alec Rawls

    You sir are a man of ethical core… Thank You

    Bill gets popcorn and sets down to watch the alarmists go nuts… ( gonna need a really big bag)

  313. highflight56433 says:

    Keep up the truth finding and hats off to the tireless and relentless posting of such.

  314. mpaul says:

    It should also be noted that the cut-off date for peer-reviewed published literature to be included and assessed in the final draft lies in the future (15 March 2013). The text that has been posted is thus not the final report.

    The statement from the IPCC couldn’t be more clear. In effect, they are saying, “there’s still plenty of time for us to manufacture Pal Reviewed papers that will bring the literature into alignment with the Agenda”. We’ve seen this before. The draft is really just intended to identify where the literature fails to present a “nice tidy story”. The Team then uses this information to gin up papers that say what the IPCC wants them to say. The IPCC can then claim that “the best and most up-to-date science say that its worst than we thought”.

    Of course this time, their tricks will be a bit more obvious.

  315. AndyG55 says:

    Matthew R Marler says:.”
    “That sounds like the “same” game, not a “changed” game.

    Precisely ! The same “ignore real evidence” game that the IPCC have been using for a long time.
    The fact is , that this time they have actually mentioned enhanced solar forcing, and even though they go ahead and dump the idea with no scientific reason to do so, the mention is still there.

    So, the game HAS changed !!
    They are preparing for the downturn in temperature that will most certainly follow the sun’s currently lazy solar activity.

  316. Hi G. You mentioned corporate funding, so I’m posting an updated version of a comment I’ve made in previous threads. (I’ve added four items at the end.) I could say more on the topic, but it would take ages.
    ==================

    Notes From Skull Island

    Brian Martin, in his wonderful online booklet Strip the Experts, wrote that if your opponents:

    “have a financial interest in what they are promoting, exposing it can be very damaging.”

    This line of attack on skeptics has been very successful for the warmists in the past, which is why they constantly recur to it. But the recent skeptical attack has been mostly an indignant, blogger-led populist revolt against increased and unnecessary taxation and regulation (fewer barbecues, etc.) and against elitist presumption.

    If our side were well funded and well organized, it would have the following characteristics:

    1. There’d be a slick umbrella site like HufPo under which all dissident bloggers could shelter, cutting their costs, increasing ad revenue, and simplifying and standardizing the process of surfing the deviationist blogosphere, especially for visiting journalists. The effect would be to considerably “amplify” the dissenters’ voices.

    2. Failing that, there’d be enough $ for individual sites to ensure that, for instance, Climate Audit would have been able to handle to traffic-surge in the wake of Climategate, instead of being overwhelmed. (How’s that unpreparedness agree with “well organized”?)

    3. There’d be a PR agency to “package” stories emerging from the blogosphere and articles in scientific journals or contrarian columnists and feed them to media sources in easy-to-read, pre-edited form. (Or at least an unincorporated online network of funded individuals performing a PR function.) This is a topic that is so complex and filled with jargon that it desperately needs such pre-chewing to get the MSM to swallow it. But what do we have? Only Climate Depot, which provides leads, but no packaging.

    As Mike Haseler wrote, “it’s blatantly obvious to me that the press need to be fed stories almost ready for publication, you can’t expect them to take highly technical writing and try and make sense of it!”

    BTW, another contra-factual is Climategate. There was no pre-planned media-coordination involved in the matter. There was no campaign to alert them to its importance, nor any professional packaging of the story for them. No one gave Fox a heads-up. As a result, MSM coverage of the event was nil.

    (As for the idea that the leak was “timed” to disrupt Copenhagen, that’s equally absurd. The story gained no MSM coverage at all for the first two weeks, because that’s how long it took to ascertain that the e-mails were legit and to untangle the rat’s nest of e-mails and shed some light on them and the Read_Me file. It took about four weeks for the scandal to really heat up, with outraged commentary finally appearing in some middle-of-the-road venues. Any professional media consultant would have advised leaking the documents six to eight weeks earlier than Nov. 20. By that time, attendees’ reservations and trip-plans were cast in concrete.)

    4. There’d be a centralized, regularly updated, annotated, topically divided, web-wide index of useful “ammo” skeptical or skeptic-supporting articles. If I, or anyone, were cat-herder in chief, this would be one of the top items on the agenda.

    5. There’d be a REPOSITORY for “quotes of the day” from blog commenters. (These get lost in the noise after a week or so otherwise.) Here’s an example, from Willis:

    “First, my thanks to all the prospective henchdudes and henchbabes out there, a map to my hollow volcano lair will be emailed to you as soon as I get one. Well-funded mercilessness roolz! I demand a volcano lair!”

    6. There’d be extensive book tours for every skeptical book published, to gain exposure in multiple markets via interviews in the local press, etc. Such tours could be extended for many months, well beyond any rational “payback” in book sales, if the real aim were to get media exposure – for instance by challenging local warmists to debates on the premises of the newspaper or broadcaster, etc. The funding for such a tour could easily be concealed.

    7. Certain fringe or off-topic comments would be “moderated” out, because they step on people’s toes and don’t play well in Peoria. E.g., New World Order theorizing, bolshy bashing, boot-the-UN and tar-and-feather-‘em remarks, and most attribution-of-motives comments. Populist “venting” of all sorts would be toned down; instead the stress would be on sweet reasonableness and out-reaching to the average citizen and opinion-leader. Any media pro would advise that course, especially one with a big funder behind him (who wouldn’t want to be tarred by association with tin-foil-hat opinions (if news of a link ever came out)). Such a “mainstream” tone and mindset would be the fingerprint of any top-down campaign on a scientific topic.

    8. Not only would there be more stylistic similarity, but the content would be less idiosyncratic as well. There’d be evidence of a “script” or list of talking points that skeptic commenters were following, instead of the typical home-brew assemblage of arguments.

    9. There’d be an astro-turfed tag-team of high-stamina commenters assigned to Win the War for Wikipedia by out-shouting and out-censoring Connolley and Co. They’d also go en masse to Amazon and give warmist books a thumbs-down and engage in comment-combats there as well. But the dissenters in such venues have been an outnumbered, disorganized rabble.

    10. There’d be much more stress on arguments that would move the masses and that don’t take a degree to understand. I.e., arguments about the costliness, technical impracticality, and political unenforceability of mitigation strategies, and about the ineffectiveness of massive CO2 emission-reduction in the atmosphere even if all those obstacles were of no account.

    If skeptics were truly Machiavellian, or guided by political “pros” behind the scenes, they’d be hitting these popular hot buttons. Those are where the warmists’ case is shakiest — and it’s always a good strategy to focus on the opponents’ weakest points and pound on them endlessly. Instead, these topics make up only 10% or so of the skeptical thrust. Most dissenters devote most of their energy to talking about weather events, dissing believers, and arguing about technical and scientific matters.

    11. There’d be an extensive online collection of opposition research, such as warmist predictions waiting to be shot down by contrary events. Such opposition research is so valuable a tactic (as is now being shown) that no political or PR consultant would have failed to insist on it.

    E.g., a score of warmist predictions of less snowfall would have been at hand to counter Gore’s claim that the models predicted more snowfall. Similarly, the IPCC’s Assessment Reports would have been scoured for flaws and nits long ago. Instead, it wasn’t until Glaciergate that we got on its case in any semi-organized fashion.

    12. There’d be an online point-by-point rebuttal of all the “How to Talk to A Skeptic” talking points, not just scattered counterpoints to a few of them. And there’d be a Wikipedia discussing those points and more in fuller detail. Lucy Skywalker is trying to assemble these, but it’s obviously an unfunded effort.

    13. The Oregon Petition Project would have been handled professionally. I.e., there’d have been no short-sighted tactics such as use of NAS-lookalike typography, no claim that the signers constituted “a meaningful representation” (let alone that the consensus was on the skeptics’ side), no claim that all the signers were scientists (when some were technologists and dentists, etc.), and no implication that the signers had all been vetted. A skilled propagandist, such as one hired by King Coal, would have avoided such a transparent over-reaching, which threw away the petition’s effectiveness by handing the opposition a chance to counterpunch effectively.

    14. There’d be a place for the reposting of the “highlights” of WUWT and other skeptic sites, and also such sites would have editors who would retroactively (after a month or so) work on a “sister site” consisting of “Highlights of WUWT,” in which outstanding paragraphs would be flagged and/or highlighted. This would make it easier for newcomers and journalists to effectively skim it and notice our better arguments and facts.

    Such editorial work could be done by people who have good judgment and lots of knowledge of the issues, like Pamela Gray, Lucy Skywalker, etc.

    15. There’d be a reposting of “negative highlights” from warmists’ sites in which the unsavory qualities of their leading lights and hatchetmen were on display. Call it, maybe, “Quoted Without Comment” or “Get a Load of This.” It would make an impact on fence-sitters.

    16. There’d be a spiffy ad campaign consisting of short spots (20 to 40 seconds) that would focus on making one quick jab at the warmists. There should be a standard format for these ads, such as a common tag-line, music, lead-in, graphics style, etc. The touch should be light, with the aim of making the spots entertaining, such as by including little bits of silly rhymes, etc. The ads should also be “different,” to get around viewers’ defenses, and to make the message “sticky.” Care should be taken to avoid overstatement, and to make qualifications where necessary, to forestall counterpunches.

    One easy target, because of its good “visuals” and absence of technical obscurity, would be to show non-performing wind turbines and weed-overgrown solar-panel farms. The failure of these ventures (relative to the promises that were made about them), and the fraud associated with them abroad, would be a benchmark against which other swarmist claims could be judged.

    [not posted]

    Here’s an example: A close up of of short bursts extracted from Chavez at Copenhagen ranting at length ala Castro (a superimposed stopwatch behind him would indicate the passage of time). At the end, the camera would pull back and show the standing ovation he received.

    Then a text message would appear on-screen saying: “Chavez was allowed to exceed his ten-minute speaking time.

    Where?

    Three guesses. …

    Why?

    Three guesses. …

    Does your congressman belong among them?

    One guess.”
    ——-

    Or just say, “Is your congressman one of these?” Or “… on their side?”

    (PS: I suspect, from the leftist venues Mann’s spoken at, and from his victim-of-a-conspiracy mindset, that he’s on their side.)

    17. There’d be a copy editing & peer review service to vet our side’s books prior to publication, since any flubs will be seized on by warmists to discredit the entire work, as happened to Plimer’s book. Instead, dissenting books continue to be produced in an amateurish fashion. For instance, in Steve Goreham’s just-out (and excellent) Climatism!, I found two obvious spelling errors in just an hour’s skimming. (“Forego” for “forgo” and “principle” used where “principal” was needed.)

    18. We’d be conducting polls of various groups of scientists designed to offset the effect of such polls by the other side.

    19. There’d be mass distribution of my broken hockey stick button [give links]

    20. We’d be pushing geoengineering as the preferred “adaptive” alternative to mitigation. It’s something that the average man can understand as a general concept. E.g., if it rains, open your umbrella. Instead, contrarian bloggers we’d virtually never mention geoengineering except to sneer at it.

    21. Commenters would be compensated for accessing paywalled articles. Instead, virtually every thread on WUWT that critiques a warmist paper lamaents its paywalled status and critiques only what is outside the paywall.

    Big Oil? Baby Oil is more like it. Ologeneous overlords? My companions and I on Skull Island laugh until we vomit.

  317. SamG says:

    “United States taxpayers have funded climate science to the tune of well over 80 billion dollars”

    What Bernanke conjures up in a month to avoid the recession.

  318. davidmhoffer says:

    Bill McKibben,

    Given that AR5 completely reverses the position of the IPCC on drought, hurricanes and floods, are you prepared to retract your article from earlier this year titled “The New Normal”? Are you prepared to admit that your alarmism was not founded on science after all? Will you, as the ethical journalist you claim to be, not only admit your folly, but publicly call out the IPCC and their minions for misleading you until now with claims that were increasingly ludicrous in face of the facts?

    Will you apologize Bill? Will you say you are sorry Bill for ridiculing those of us who pointed out that a warming world should have less severe weather, not more? That the laws of physics could not produce any other result?

    Faced with facts which falsify his argument, a fool argues anyway.
    A man steps up, admits his error, and learns from his mistakes.
    A coward slinks away in silence.

    The IPCC has ceased playing the fool in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (on these matters at least).

    What Bill, will you do now?

  319. thingadonta says:

    “In effect they are claiming that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, that you have to keep turning the flame up to get continued warming, an un-scientific absurdity that I have been writing about for several years (most recently in my post about Isaac Held’s bogus 2-box model of ocean equilibration).”

    Agree totally, this is one of the key mistakes the climate alarmists have made, and it will be their great undoing. Every day the temperature continues to rise between noon and 2pm when incoming solar radation declines (barring e.g. clouds etc), yet climate scientists (presumably glued to their models and PCs in air conditioned offices) can’t even notice or understand this very simple observation.

  320. Steve says:

    G hit the wall with his ref to the GISS data set – the most corrupt set of adjusted data since Al Capone’s accountant was keeping the ‘books’ !

    Otherwise, I ( being of cynical mind ) must say that those of us not in lock step with the Reich do need to be very cautious. The warmists have their little press release – reacting to the “leak” and so now, next year when AR5 official hits the streets they will be in perfect position to ridicule all the ‘stunning revelations’ of this leaked set of pubs, when examination of the official AR5 shows that our revelations are not there [ no longer in the doc ] .

    Or, scenario B, the various graphs and conclusions have been edited to fall back in with the longer term, previous propaganda.

    Sadly, it’s not final until it’s final. ( or some IPCC hack can no longer rewrite it ).

  321. JPeden says:

    Thanks, Alec! At long last the “Summary For Policymakers” is published without the ipcc’s Press Release Propaganda preceding it by weeks and promising us that “smoking guns” will magically appear when we do finally see the SPM. And the SPM is at long last published along with the ‘science’ that it is allegedly based upon, instead of the latter following the SPM by several months so that the SPM can serve only as unsubstantiated, unscientific Propaganda. Restoring the scientific practice that makes a scientific publication’s conclusions appear only when accompanied by the actual science they are based upon is a great step back to reestablishing the practice of real science – and perhaps it’s also another rationale for your unilateral release of the whole AR5!

  322. janama says:

    The ABC Australia has mentioned the leak.

    “The leaker and other climate sceptics have isolated one section of the draft to suggest that cosmic rays such as those of the Sun may have a greater influence on warming than had been claimed.

    Professor Steve Sherwood, the director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, was the lead author of the chapter in question.

    He says the idea that the chapter he authored confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming is “ridiculous”.

    “I’m sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite – that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible,” he told PM.

    “What it shows is that we looked at this. We look at everything.

    “The IPCC has a very comprehensive process where we try to look at all the influences on climate and so we looked at this one.”

    Professor Sherwood says research has effectively disproved the idea that sunspots are more responsible for global warming than human activity.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-14/ipcc-draft-climate-report-leaked/4429036

  323. A-Smelly-Fish!-Is-A-Bad-Odor!-Evidence-Is-Abundant says:

    Deck chairs [chapters] being re-arranged … yet again … what will the conclusion be this time [?].

    Looks like a berg clipped the starboard. Pity.

    Per Captain’s commands: “Deny anyone life preservers and Lock the Gates at Steerage: Shoot them if they protest. Kill them All With Glee On My Order,” the Generalissimo Exaltis Devine Rajendra Pachauri savior betrayer of Homo Sapiens his devoted lovely enemy.

    XD

  324. J Martin says:

    The online version of the New Scientist, that purportedly scientific UK publication which on the subject of climate change adheres to complete political correctness, has published a reaction to this leak by the extremist co2 fanatic Michael Marshall who’s works full-time for New Scientist as their environment reporter.

    A draft of a major report on climate change, due to be published next year, has been leaked online. Climate-sceptic bloggers have seized on it, claiming that it admits that much of global warming has been caused by the sun’s variability, not by greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the report says nothing of the kind.

    One wonders if he will still have his job with the soon to be discredited publication once temperatures enter a long term decline. It amazes me how people can cling to and ascribe totality to an impossibly simplistic belief. I guess such behaviour must be a fundamental part of the human psyche, many people take the easy option and choose black and white viewpoints rather than struggle with attempting to understand reality which is invariably more complicated.

    In the same article we also have this;

    “The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are,” says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia

    But of course being an Australian university professor he has no hope of keeping his job unless he toes the party political line, doing so will suffocate any individuality or innovative research and so he will consequently never make a new discovery or publish a paper which stands the test of time.

    Once temperatures enter a long term decline as seems inevitable, I imagine that he might tone down some of his “denier denialist” rhetoric.

  325. J Martin says:

    G.
    You said

    We do nothing, and climate change turns out to be very dangerous. Tens of millions of people are displaced. Food shortages. Resource conflicts. Runaway climate change caused by methane deposits. Nature hopefully stabilises, and some of humanity of hopefully left to rebuild. So, which is the most preferable pair of outcomes? Do we do something, or nothing?

    A shallow assumption. If the World warms, vast areas of land in the Northern Hemisphere, currently too cold to farm effectively will become available and other areas will improve in productivity. We will likely gain more than we lose.
    Methane and co2 levels have been many times higher in the past and even if the entirety of the Worlds know fossil fuel reserves where released into the atmosphere we still would not get back to those levels. Runaway global warming did not take place then, it cannot take place today.

    You talk of resource conflicts and some of humanity hopefully left to rebuild. In a warming world this is a nonsense scenario, history shows us that previous warm periods were warmer than today and civilisations flourished during those times and suffered during colder times. It is severe cooling which poses the greater threat to mankind.

    Since you use the phrase ‘”runaway warming” let us also consider the effects of “runaway cooling”, that is a glaciation, and would make much of the northern hemisphere uninhabitable. So about one billion well armed inhabitants of Russia, Europe, Canada, the US, would need to abandon their countries and move South. Clearly runaway cooling is the scenario which would cause the most resource conflicts and food shortages.

  326. Alex Rawls seems to have missed this vital bit on the next page of the report in section 7.4.5.3:

    “Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.”

    So his statement about climate scientists contradicting themselves is completely bogus.
    The lesson here is to read the context (which only requires scrolling to the next page) and to take cherry-picked sentences with a pinch of salt.

    I rest my case.

  327. Stephen Wilde says:

    The IPCC may express some doubt about CCNs being responsible but in parallel with that they clearly now accept the evidence of a solar amplification of some sort.

    The best candidate in my opinion is variations in the mix of wavelengths and particles which change far more than raw TSI.

    I have explained elsewhere how that would work.

    Alec Rawls is correct as to the proper interpretation of the IPCC draft paper.

    The acceptance of solar amplification is clearly not dependent on CCNs being the cause.

    I agree with the IPCC as regards CCNs.

    Far more likely is cloud changes as a result of jet stream shifts between zonal and meridional modes.

    The latter results in far longer lines of air mass mixing with more clouds at those lengthened air mass boundaries.

  328. Manfred says:

    This is one of many examples of evidence for the solar / climate link.

    http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/bond-et-al-2001.gif

    This correlation speaks for itself. There is no data of comparable quality in climate science. Virtually impossible that this correlation is accidental.

    That the IPCC admits an amplified solar link but then dismisses the whole influence just because they doubt a proposed mechanism is disturbing. But the data is still there and tells more than 1000 pages of the new report. Data above and multiple similar records prove that the sun has been the major climate driver in the past, and that temperatures have been significantly higher than today and fast increases and decreases have happened multiple times during the last 12000 years. Disturbingly, the data tells us as well, what will happen with temperatures and agriculture, if the sun falls into another Maunder Minimum with the next solar cycle, as it did during the little ice age.

  329. richardscourtney says:

    Thomas Edwards:

    You end your post at December 15, 2012 at 3:38 am saying,

    “I rest my case.”

    The jury is still out, and I am not on it. But if I were it then your case would lose.

    Richard

  330. David says:

    Thomas Edwards says:

    December 15, 2012 at 3:38 am
    —————————————————
    He already answered this directly in several comments.
    Your case was already lost.

  331. dabbio says:

    True CAGW skeptic here, so I hope I don’t get all climbed over for this post, but It seems to me we’re overreaching again, and getting called out for it, again, which I don’t know if that does us any good. I do like it that Anthony posts these breaking news items, but I think that the rhetoric about game-changing and bombshells could wait until we all had time to absorb the details. As for four of the revelations, it appears that Rawls is excited about a contradiction in the reports that may or may not exist, and the obscurity will be worked out so that it’s probably not a game changer. And the bombshell about the IPCC models over-predicting actual warmth: Is that really new? I thought that we knew that. Maybe not.

    On the other two, the lack of evidence for AGW-caused extreme weather, and the lack of correlation of warmth and humidity, those do seem like important admissions, and it’s great that IPCC, or at least the perhaps “naive” first drafters, include these.

  332. Gail Combs says:

    Roger Knights says:
    December 14, 2012 at 8:01 pm

    Superb analysis. It deserves a post in it’s own right.

    Skeptics know the ‘Funded by Oil’ is an absolute crock and deserve derisive laughter but this shows it is an absolute crock.

    My hats off to you.

  333. Gail Combs says:

    SamG says:
    December 14, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    “United States taxpayers have funded climate science to the tune of well over 80 billion dollars”

    What Bernanke conjures up in a month to avoid the recession.
    ____________________________________
    And gives us STAGFLATION instead.

    Is the U.S. Stagflation Nightmare on its Way Back?

    Stagflation is back, ready or not

    The Fiscal Cliff: Stagflation Vs. Deflation

    Shadow Statistics: Real US Unemployment is ~23% and stable

    Shadow Statistics: Real Inflation
    HYPERINFLATION 2012 – Shadow Government Statistic

    Shadow Government Statistics: Analysis Behind and Beyond Government Economic Reporting
    Have you ever wondered why the CPI, GDP and employment numbers run counter to your personal and business experiences? The problem lies in biased and often-manipulated government reporting.
    Primers on Government Economic Reports What you’ve suspected but were afraid to ask. The story behind unemployment, the Federal Deficit, CPI, GDP.

    His primers should be mandatory reading for every high school student and adult. His website a useful addition to anyone who wants to know what is really going on in the US economy since as we all know politicians and bureaucrats LIE.

  334. Paul Vaughan says:

    Counterspin in high gear…

    Belief in global warming rising, even among doubters: AP poll
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/belief-in-global-warming-rising-even-among-doubters-ap-poll-1.1079773

    As usual, the author thoughtlessly assumes warming can’t occur naturally and unethically mischaracterizes nature appreciators.

    Alarmists: Understand what the real issue is: We should show appreciation & respect for the power & beauty of nature. Instead of ignoring her, let’s get to know nature. We know you assume she’s hideously disfigured, but I assure you she’s stunningly beautiful if you will only put aside your models and look at reality a LOT more carefully. It has become absolutely crystal clear that you do NOT understand what the issue is.

    Solar-Terrestrial-Climate Weave:
    http://i49.tinypic.com/2jg5tvr.png

    Multidecadal Solar-Terrestrial-Climate Weave Deceleration:
    http://i46.tinypic.com/303ipeo.png
    http://i50.tinypic.com/2v2ywzb.png
    http://i40.tinypic.com/16a368w.png
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1275t4383874p65/MediaObjects/382_2011_1071_Fig4_HTML.gif
    http://i49.tinypic.com/wwdwy8.png

    Interpretation:
    Equator-pole heat & water pump doppler effect.

    Via Laws of:
    a) conservation of angular momentum.
    b) large numbers.

    Data:
    ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/eop/long-term/c04_08/iau2000/eopc04_08_IAU2000.62-now

    I dare Jasper Kirkby & Henrick Svensmark in particular to LOOK CAREFULLY. If they actually know how to derive aggregate constraints on terrestrial circulatory morphology, they will realize these observations are bulletproof.

    I advise care. Those who fail to acknowledge such well-constrained observations can be classified ONLY as dark agents of ignorance &/or deception.

    Alarmists:
    Stop misframing the issue.
    Show appreciation & respect for the power & beauty of nature.

    That’s what’s being asked of you.

  335. Gail Combs says:

    dabbio says:
    December 15, 2012 at 6:16 am

    True CAGW skeptic here, so I hope I don’t get all climbed over for this post….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    From what I can see if you have N skeptics in the room you have N+1 views along with a lot of presentation of observations and theories. This is good and as it should be.

    With Warmists you normal have everyone singing from the same hymnal. The fact there has been even a slight break in the ranks is the real GOOD NEWS.

  336. taxed says:

    lf you want to know what’s a big driver in changes in cloud cover.!

    Well if you take a look at the Fulldisk satellite image of the eastern Pacific, then the answer will be right in front of your eyes.
    As it shows clearly how a increase in the amount the jet stream oscillates can lead to a increase in cloud cover. Because its along the jet stream where much of the cloud cover forms. So as the jet stream fluctuates more, so it leads to a increase in cloud cover.

  337. Steven Mosher says:

    This correlation speaks for itself. There is no data of comparable quality in climate science. Virtually impossible that this correlation is accidental.

    Wow. I love the skeptical “mind”

  338. RB says:

    [snip - g2-91a96892c9b157ef8c7ff35a46563741 is not a valid name - mod]

    But has anyone checked if its the CG3 password :) ?

  339. Gail Combs says:
    December 15, 2012 at 6:32 am

    Roger Knights says:
    December 14, 2012 at 8:01 pm

    Superb analysis. It deserves a post in its own right.

    Thanks. I think that what I have to contribute here are persuasive/marketing-type suggestions of this sort. I am discouraged that Anthony hasn’t risen to the bait on a few of my similar suggestions in the past. The following, for instance, I think is a clever way of making the point about the incentives to play along with alarmism. The headline is very sly. I submitted it as a story but it wasn’t accepted. (I think the value of making threads of stuff like this is that the feedback would greatly improve them.)
    ============

    If Global Warming Didn’t Exist, It Would Be Necessary to Invent It:

    … To lift climatology out of its backwater status …
    … To increase research funding for Academia …
    … To justify the de facto political empowerment of a sector of the scientific / academic elite, setting a precedent for the subsequent empowerment of other sectors of that elite.*
    … To refresh the raison d’être of the EPA & UN …
    … To move environmentalism from the fringes to the center of social concern …
    … To justify increased media coverage of environmental issues …
    … To give enviro-groups a powerful fund-raising and consciousness-raising tool …
    … and allow them access to the levers of national and international power …
    … To give activist & green parties a vote-getting wedge issue …
    … and a case-study justification for their habitual “hammer” (increased regulation and taxation) …
    … To provide at-a-loss “engagé/enragé” types with a new stick with which to bash the beastly bourgeoise…
    … To transfer wealth from the West to the South …
    … To fund alternative energy developers and researchers …

    (* See Pareto on “the circulation of the elites.”)

    So why not “warm” to global warming, if you’re:

    … a climatologist?
    … a university administrator?
    … an environmentalist?
    … an environmental reporter?
    … an official of an environmental organization?
    … a worker or investor in an alternative energy company?
    … a UN official?
    … a socialist?
    … a natural-born “true believer”?
    … a country in the global South?
    … a bigshot in a boffins’ brigade?

    For such as those, what’s not to like about “climatism”? It’s all upside—a gravy train that’s glory-bound. It would be tempting to get aboard, wouldn’t it? (Especially after others did so, threatening to leave you on The Wrong Side.)

  340. Lars P. says:

    richardscourtney says:
    December 14, 2012 at 9:10 am

    wow, thank you, I admire your patience to make a throughout clarification!

    E.M.Smith says:
    December 14, 2012 at 4:35 pm
    @richardscourtney:
    I, in fact, use that “reflection of self” in figuring out what the other side thinks and does. It’s remarkably effective. So, for example, Tzo talks about the “overlords”. Lets see, which side has overlords? The “self organizing system of individuals” of the rabble (said endearingly) of the skeptics? Or the UN / EU / IPCC / NSF driven top down central authority based AGW crowd? Hmmmm?

    So just listen to their rants, then use two tools:

    1) Reflective assessment. What do they accuse the other of doing? that is likely what THEY do or what they are experiencing. It is the social norm they have internalized.

    2) Negative Space evaluation: What is not said. That is where they have fear. (Oddly, what is denied most loudly is often also a fear point, so there is a ‘barbell’ to the negative space to also look for). Take, for example, the way The Sun gets “disappeared” from the reports… and nearly no mention of long cycle historical events (Bond, D.O., LIA / MWP / Roman Optimum,…)
    ….
    Thanks E.M. Great analysis!

    Gail Combs says:
    December 14, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    Gail, thank you for the overview!
    I think Anthony could take several comments from this thread and post those as individual blog posts….

  341. Alyssa says:

    Umm…You DO realize that the actual draft says the exact opposite of what you claim? Is your desperation so deep that you’ll lie without a second thought? http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/12/desperate-for-doubt.html

  342. This sounds great until Leif Svaalgard shows up and shreds everything. I predict he’ll not agree to any of this (unless I missed something over the past 8 years!) and look forward to his most expert opinion.

  343. Stephen Wilde says:

    taxed said:

    “increase in the amount the jet stream oscillates can lead to a increase in cloud cover. Because its along the jet stream where much of the cloud cover forms. So as the jet stream fluctuates more, so it leads to a increase in cloud cover.”

    At last, someone has actually taken a look.

    I’ve been saying that for ages.

  344. richardscourtney says:

    Alyssa:

    Your post at December 15, 2012 at 8:25 am asks

    Umm…You DO realize that the actual draft says the exact opposite of what you claim? Is your desperation so deep that you’ll lie without a second thought?

    It then links to a warmunist blog.

    I know it is difficult for a warmunist, but please try to not be silly.

    The entire draft AR5 was leaked and the leaker quoted some statements from it verbatim because he thought they were noteworthy.

    Providing the entire text ensures that all context is provided and quoting verbatim is not – and cannot be – “the exact opposite of what you claim”.

    Also, please refrain from accusing others of lies when it is warmunists – not climate realists – who lie and lie and … in furtherance of their cause.

    By the way, what rate were you payed to make your untrue post?

    Richard

  345. Ian H says:

    Everyone wishes to promote the cause and so …

    the modellers make aggressive assumptions which predict more rather than less warming
    those in charge of the temperature record aggressively adjust for factors that might make the warming look greater, and fudge adjustments that might make it less.
    the proxy people look for proxies which show greatest warming.
    the hockeystick people carefully select a method which most highly weights the warmest proxies
    the effects people look only at the most dire negative effects of warming they can find and choose not to investigate positive effects.
    The IPCC lead authors emphasis only the papers which predict greatest warming and direst consequences.
    The summary for policy makers puts the most aggressive spin possible on the conclusions of the earlier chapters.
    The green media doubles down by putting the direst possible spin on the summary for policy makers, constructs headlines of catastrophe, attacks critics, and generally tries to suppress any hint of dissent with one sided unfair reporting.

    So many people all leaning in the same direction on the evidence; each person pushing it just to the limit of what they think they can justify but no further. But the cumulative effect of all those thumbs on the scales is massive. A story of catastrophe has been constructed out of thin air.

    (hope the HTML has no errors – wish we could preview)

  346. The stage is set for Leif !!!

  347. Ian W says:

    As you might expect, the warmist media disagrees with Alex’s interpretation of the AR5 report. From the UK New Scientist:
    Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change
    Haigh says that if Rawls had read a bit further, he would have realised that the report goes on to largely dismiss the evidence that cosmic rays have a significant effect. “They conclude there’s very little evidence that it has any effect,” she says.
    In fact, the report summary reaffirms that humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions are the main reason for rising temperatures. It goes on to detail the many harmful effects, from more frequent heatwaves to rising sea levels.

    This is not my reading of the report – but then if your salary depends on CAGW ……

  348. Steven Mosher says:

    Rawls is somewhat inconsistent in his rationale for breaching his contract

    As for my personal confidentiality agreement with the IPCC, I regard that as vitiated by the systematic dishonesty of the report (“omitted variable fraud” as I called it in my FOD comments). This is a general principle of journalistic confidentiality: bad faith on one side breaks the agreement on the other. They can’t ask reviewers to become complicit in their dishonesty by remaining silent about it.

    Then there is the specific content of the Second Order Draft where the addition of one single sentence demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole.

    #######################

    Do you see it? He argues that they were DISHONEST about The “Omitted” Variable.
    And then argues that they were HONEST about the same variable.

    In truth he had no basis for breaking his agreement. [snip]

  349. A bit of realism. Does anyone REALLY believe that after all these years the IPCC is going to say they were wrong? I don’t.

  350. Matthew R Marler says:

    Steven Mosher: In truth he had no basis for breaking his agreement. [snip]

    The more I think about this episode, the more I think that Alec Rawls did a disservice by leaking the draft, much as I enjoy having it. Nothing revealed so far justifies his breaking of his promise of confidentiality, and his exaggerated (sometimes contradictory, as cited by Steven Mosher) claims about minor details of writing make him look bad. It is reminiscent, in its exaggeration, of the AGW promoters who claim Katrina and Sandy as harbingers of unprecedented warming. And it is reminiscent, in its dishonesty, of James Gleick and of the ClimateGate emails.

  351. davidmhoffer says:

    Matthew R Marler;
    And it is reminiscent, in its dishonesty, of James Gleick and of the ClimateGate emails.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    James Gleick had exactly what to do with the ClimateGate emails? Perhaps you’re referring to Peter Gleick? Of course he also had nothing to do with the ClimateGate emails, he was the person who obtained Heritage Foundation documents under false presences and compounded his deceit by also releasing what turned out to be a forged document which some evidence points to as having been written by him. Surely you are not suggesting that Alec Rawls obtained documents under false pretenses and forged other documents?

  352. John Bills says:

    mr. Mosher, IPCC pay attention,
    There is another unexplained forcing from the sun because, many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of this unknown amplifying mechanism.The cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way.
    THE WORKING GROUP CAN’T EXPLAIN WHAT CAUSES THE AMPLIFYING MECHANISM AND CHOOSES TO IGNORE IT; LYING BY OMISSION.

  353. Tilo Reber says:

    “In effect they are claiming that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, that you have to keep turning the flame up to get continued warming, an un-scientific absurdity that I have been writing about for several years”

    Exactly! I’ve been using the same metaphore for years as well – with the addition that the oceans are a very large kettle of water.

    I think if you use solar variation in combination with ENSO cycles since 1980 you get a very good picture of the actual temperature trend. That is the temperature trend that is reflected by a fair accounting of UHI and that is not amplified by polar extrapolations.

  354. Tilo Reber says:

    Mosher: “Do you see it? He argues that they were DISHONEST about The “Omitted” Variable.
    And then argues that they were HONEST about the same variable.”

    Explicitly lawyering for the warmers now are we, Mosh?

    Who really cares? What the IPCC is doing should be open to public scrutiny. It’s the content that counts. Why it was leaked has no bearing on the content. This is not a political election.

  355. stacase says:

    Chapter Page 31 you find Table 13.1 and a new category, “Land Water” compared to the old Table 10.7 in the AR4. They say “Land Water” includes liquid water storage and glaciers, but they retain the category “Glaciers” I could be wrong but it looks like they count the effect of glaciers on sea level twice. Discount the “Glaciers” category and they come up short nearly 0.5 mm/yr in matching the reality of the observed Global Mean Sea Level Rise (GMSLR).

  356. Gunga Din says:

    Antwerpenaar says:
    December 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm
    Usual self-serving claptrap. I’m a European taxpayer, and I didn’t actually want the report early – I wanted it issued in a controlled fashion, properly presented.
    =================================================================
    Me: Controlled by whom? The problem with the actual report rather than its spun summary being looked at by those with the where-with-all (and, no, I’m one of them) to scrutinize it before some jouralist writes a headline is ….what?
    ===================================================================
    Antwerp: But then we Europeans don’t matter, do we? ==================================================================
    Me: Attempting to appeal to some sort of “Nationlism”? Sure, Europeans matter. They are as much victims of this power grab as the rest of us.
    ===================================================================
    Antwerp: And besides, this Alec Rawls guy has made his name by climbing over the backs of all the other team members, so that’s OK then.
    ==================================================================
    Me: Alec Rawls climbing over other’s backs? If there is any possibilty that your accusation has any bit of truth to it, I’m glad he did. I’d rather someone climbed on my back to reach a higher level than be stabbed in the back by someone who wants to take what I’ve worked for.

    PS Where would we be if others had not stood on the shoulders of those who came before them? Sometimes that higher reach has been showing “the shoulders” were wrong. (Or do you still believe there are only 4 elements?)

  357. Camburn says:

    John Bills says:
    December 15, 2012 at 11:20 am

    “THE WORKING GROUP CAN’T EXPLAIN WHAT CAUSES THE AMPLIFYING MECHANISM AND CHOOSES TO IGNORE IT; LYING BY OMISSION.”

    Sir: This is precisely what has been going on for years.

  358. kim says:

    Matt & moshe, remember, open records are a good.
    ==================

  359. Deane says:

    Wait a minute, you’re taking ONE sentence from a report that concludes the exact opposite of what you claim and you’re calling that “Game-Changing?” You expect to be taken seriously? There will come a time when you can no longer lie your way out of the science that has been spot on for the last 30 years. Simply propaganda on your part.

  360. vukcevic says:

    Gail Combs says:
    December 14, 2012 at 9:29 am
    ……
    Comrade Svalgaardovich finally lost his cool
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/circular-logic-not-worth-a-millikelvin/#comment-1174104

  361. Kev-in-Uk says:

    I accept that the disclosure of the report cannot perhaps be fully justified under the claimed headline re: solar forcings. However, I for one am immensely pleased that we will be able to compare this SOD with then final published version and the language contortions contained therein!

  362. jrwakefield says:

    I just did a quick calculation of their sea level projections and numbers from http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch13_sea-level_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch13_All_Final.pdf

    “Chapter 3 also assesses the significance of the sea level acceleration since the beginning of the instrumental
    6 record reported by a number of studies. Because of the presence of low-frequency oscillations (e.g., 60-year
    7 oscillations; Chambers et al., submitted; in some tide gauge records), sea level acceleration results are
    8 sensitive to the choice of the analysis time span. Chapter 3 concludes that the rate of sea level rise has
    9 increased since the late 19th century and has continued during the 20th century. When a 60-year oscillation
    10 is modeled along with an acceleration term, the estimated acceleration in GMSL since 1900 ranges from:
    0.000 [–0.002 to 0.002] mm yr
    –2
    11 (90% confidence) in the Ray and Douglas (2011) record, 0.013 [0.007 to
    0.019] mm yr
    –2
    in the Jevrejeva et al. (2008) record, and 0.012 [0.009 to 0.015] mm yr
    –2
    12 (90% confidence) in
    13 the Church and White (2011) record. For comparison, (Church and White, 2011) estimated the acceleration
    term to be 0.009 ± 0.003 mm yr
    –2
    14 over the 1880–2009 time span when the 60-year cycle is not considered.”

    Thus they are admitting that there is no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise in one paper, and puny acceleration rates in two others. 0.009mm/yr^2 is just 0.5% acceleration on a rate of 1.74mm/year. By 2100 that is an accumulated rise of 20cm, 5cm more than if there was no acceleration at all. Even their worst case of 3mm/year now, with an acceleration of 0.015mm/yr^2 gives an accumulation of just 33cm.

    So officially the IPCC is going to say there may not be acceleration, and if there is the MOST it can be by 2100 is 33cm. Unless the IPCC is going to claim that there will be an acceleration in the acceleration.

  363. vukcevic says:

    Tilo Reber says:
    December 15, 2012 at 11:27 am
    …….
    I do too, but in a somewhat different setting:
    Pot of salty water is heated from above by any kind of moderate heat source (sun). Warm water at the top, cool water is lower down. When temperatures reach equilibrium gently agitate by an electromagnet acting with Lorentz force on the saline ions (geomagnetic storms). Some of the accumulated heat will be released into the air above, the equilibrium has been disrupted, cooler surface, followed by more heat absorbing from the source above, and so on, result surface temperature oscillation (the AMO).
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm

  364. lorne50 says:

    Really I went to download from the site in update 2 and all I got was 8 or more toolbars?

  365. AndyG55 says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    “This correlation speaks for itself. There is no data of comparable quality in climate science. Virtually impossible that this correlation is accidental.
    Wow. I love the skeptical “mind””

    Wow, quite good correlation over several thousands of years.

    That sure beats a pure coincidence of CO2 rise vs temp rise over a 20 year period. !

    Of the past 60 or so years, this coincidence only existed for around 20 years.
    THERE HAS BEEN NO CORRELATION between CO2 and temperature over the last many thousands of years. !!!.

    And Mosh, you would not know skepticism if it bit you on the butt !!!

  366. AndyG55 says:

    Steve says:
    December 14, 2012 at 9:50 pm
    “Sadly, it’s not final until it’s final. ( or some IPCC hack can no longer rewrite it ).”

    It will be very interesting to see what gets “CORRECTED” (lol) in the Final report !! :-)

  367. Gunga Din says:

    Gunga Din says:
    December 15, 2012 at 11:48 am
    Antwerpenaar says:
    December 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm
    =====================================
    One more thing.
    This whole thing is supposed to be about science, not politics. How is it a bad thing for scientist to have a look at it before the politicians attempt to use it for … politics?
    Should we need an FOIA request?
    (I’d love to see Glimategate3 come out now!)

  368. davidmhoffer says:

    Deanne;
    There will come a time when you can no longer lie your way out of the science that has been spot on for the last 30 years.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    What is the part that has been spot on?

    increased hurricane severity => wrong, and they admit it in AR5
    increased hurricane frequency => wrong, and they admit it in AR5
    increased droughts => wrong, and they admit it in AR5
    increased flooding => wrong, and they admit it in AR5
    increased temps => they won’t admit it, but their own data says they were wrong
    declining arctic ice => check. Q: how do flat temps cause this?
    declining antarctic ice => wrong

    OK, let’s give them 1/2 mark out of 7 just to be generous. What’s the part they were spot on about?

  369. Manfred says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    December 15, 2012 at 7:45 am
    This correlation speaks for itself. There is no data of comparable quality in climate science. Virtually impossible that this correlation is accidental.

    Wow. I love the skeptical “mind”
    ——————

    Well, i am just using IPCC report language for expressing (un)certainty. And they do not even have any data correlations of this kind for their case.

    First comes ignoration, then criticism, then “it doesn’t matter” and finally they come with something else.

    You are still in step 1.

  370. Gerard says:

    ‘The Age’ Newspaper in Melbourne ( a pro warming paper) says on its front page that the leaked report proves beyond doubt that mankind is causing global warming.

  371. mpainter says:

    I for one am not impressed by the criticisms of those who condemn Rawls for releasing this draft. None of the critics have seen fit to adress the question of whether the IPCC is justified in requiring a secrecy agreement, or whether such secrecy is beneficial on the whole. I agree with those who suggest that the secrecy has much to do with the IPCC’s concern with final editing to achieve “correctitude” and spin-doctoring. I see many benefits of a public discussion of the IPCC’s inner workings. I wonder at those who assume that the IPCC is a decent process controlled by decent persons.

  372. AJason says:

    In regards to those climate change proponents, people who believe everyday humans exhaling causes long term detrimental affects to the earth, I say are pathetic in that they don’t let everyday humans decide for themselves if it’s true. Those proponents refuse to understand the concept of attaching themselves to bureaucracy which will tax or make people bend to their will, is appalling.

    There will always be arguments as to who is wrong and who is right in the climate change debate. The real truth will ferret out the public’s course of action, not from edicts or laws passed by politicians. When one side attaches themselves to that they are already going down the wrong side of the rabbit hole.

    How many times have people been lied to by politicians, that they hold the whole grail in the solution of things? It’s December 2012 in America and why aren’t we seeing the benefits of Nafta, and Gatt, passed in 1994, since they were supposed to be the next best thing since sliced bread? The road to hell is paved by the path of good intentions.

    It’s this distrust that should drive the proponents away from this resolve. Look at Einstein’s special theory of relativity, he published it and let it be. He didn’t get politicians involved in making people like or accept it. If the scientist really cared about people, then care about people and leave politics out of the equation.

  373. Gail Combs says:

    Roger Knights says:
    December 15, 2012 at 7:59 am

    …Thanks. I think that what I have to contribute here are persuasive/marketing-type suggestions of this sort….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Flesh it out a bit and write it up as a thread and use
    Submit Story: http://wattsupwiththat.com/submit-story/

    Anthony does not have the time to read all the comments.

  374. Lars P. says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    December 15, 2012 at 10:40 am
    Rawls is somewhat inconsistent in his rationale for breaching his contract

    Frankly speaking Steven I cannot see any reason for confidentiality. Why should any of the steps of this process be confidential and not open for the public who, by the way, is financing any tiny bit of it? Why not make the process transparent but “transparent”?
    It is there where science should be reviewed and discussed, and it can only help for the process to have the debate in the open.
    Why the need of secrecy??

  375. Gail Combs says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    December 15, 2012 at 8:36 am

    taxed said:

    “increase in the amount the jet stream oscillates can lead to a increase in cloud cover. Because its along the jet stream where much of the cloud cover forms. So as the jet stream fluctuates more, so it leads to a increase in cloud cover.”

    At last, someone has actually taken a look.

    I’ve been saying that for ages.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It makes sense because the clouds form along the frontal lines (high/low pressure) and though the Jets are not exactly the same they are connected to those fronts. Zonal jets are shorter than meridional. link

    Of course we are then back to the question of what caused the shift in pattern from zonal to meridonal. I doubt it is the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere especially when we are told it is uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

  376. AndyG55 says:

    Further on a previous post.

    Coincidence of trends (especially over a very short period of time) DOES NOT imply Correlation.

    and we all know that Correlation does not imply causation.

    There is TOTAL DISCONNECT between CO2 rise and temperature rise over the last century or so.

  377. Gail Combs says:

    Matthew R Marler says:
    December 15, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Steven Mosher: In truth he had no basis for breaking his agreement. [snip]

    The more I think about this episode, the more I think that Alec Rawls did a disservice by leaking the draft….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No, Alec Rawls just kept the IPCC’s commitment ….to an open and transparent process that delivers a robust assessment… link

    If the process is OPEN and TRANSPARENT then there can not be a “leak” or a “Secrecy Agreement” now can there?

  378. TRM says:

    ” Gerard says: December 15, 2012 at 1:33 pm
    ‘The Age’ Newspaper in Melbourne ( a pro warming paper) says on its front page that the leaked report proves beyond doubt that mankind is causing global warming. ”

    They really need to login to http://www.khanacademy.org and work through the basic math stuff and maybe pay special attention for the statistics section. How anyone could read that and come to that conclusion is mind boggling!

  379. JimRJBob says:

    I have read that the recently withdrawn Gergis, et al. paper is included in the draft. If that is true, what is the significance of such an action. Given all the worldwide derision that this paper received, why would it be included?

  380. Bill H says:

    http://s.tt/1wUU8

    Demsblogg… going off the deep end calling out WUWT and others as being :

    “What this leak also shows is the tendency by some to dishonestly engage in an open process and to cherry-pick “facts” about climate change to suit their own arguments, while failing to consider the full body of evidence.”

    just wow… wont even discuss it but will tout the meme and calls those who do “dishonest”. sounds to me like some people have an issue with the facts being seen..

  381. Gerard says:

    The opening paragraph in The Age article is ‘Evidence for climate change has grown stronger and it is now “virtually certain” that human greenhouse gas emissions trap energy that warms the planet, according to a leaked draft of the next major IPCC report’

  382. Simon says:

    I find it curious that skeptics who don’t believe that greenhouse gases affect climate are more than willing to believe that cosmic rays do. Surely the hurdle for cosmic rays should, if anything, be higher as the science behind how greenhouse gases is well understood but the mechanism (apart from same vague theories about cloud seeding) for GCR is not?

  383. Chris B says:

    Bill H says:
    December 15, 2012 at 3:31 pm
    http://s.tt/1wUU8

    Demsblogg… going off the deep end ………

    ===========

    At Demsmoglog, under the heading: DESMOG BLOG: Revealing the CLIMATE COVER-UP.

    “Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

    There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.”

    Orwell would be proud of them.

  384. Bill H says:

    Simon says:
    December 15, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    I find it curious that skeptics who don’t believe that greenhouse gases affect climate are more than willing to believe that cosmic rays do. Surely the hurdle for cosmic rays should, if anything, be higher as the science behind how greenhouse gases is well understood but the mechanism (apart from same vague theories about cloud seeding) for GCR is not?

    ===========================================

    Interesting that people who do not understand how Cosmic rays influence our weather and cloud cover tout GCR’s as all controlling. Yet a Coupling of CO2 and Water vapor has been shown not to exist. The alarmists thermal blanket is now a wet blanket with huge holes..

  385. AndyG55 says:

    “Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness”

    If they really feel that way, they should tell SkS, and themselves an people to Lewy, Hansen , Mann etc.. to STOP lying their a***s off !!!

  386. stacase says:

    jrwakefield said:

    “So officially the IPCC is going to say there may not be acceleration, and if there is the MOST it can be by 2100 is 33cm. Unless the IPCC is going to claim that there will be an acceleration in the acceleration.”

    And indeed they do, it’s right there in the Chapter 13 Executive summary. They say:

    “It is very likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise during the 21st century will exceed the rate observed during 1971–2010 for all RCP scenarios … with a rate of rise 8–15 mm yr–1 over the last decade of the 21st century) for RCP8.5.”

    That’s an increase of 5 – 12 mm/yr over the next 77 years, and it comes to an acceleration rate of 0.06 – 0.15 mm/yr² which will do nicely. That the current rate of acceleration is a negative -0.06 mm/yr² or so, evidently doesn’t figure into the equation. One has to wonder when this sea change in direction will come. Will it be a Godly enunciation accompanied by herald angels? Well really!

  387. davidmhoffer says:

    Simon says:
    December 15, 2012 at 5:11 pm
    I find it curious that skeptics who don’t believe that greenhouse gases affect climate are more than willing to believe that cosmic rays do.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The skeptics in general do not dispute that greenhouse gases affect climate, and in fact are better at explaining how this happens than are the warmists in general. The skeptic issue is with the magnitude and sign of direct and feedback effects.

    Of course you know that as it has been explained any number of times to you before in response to your made up theories of what other people think. Do you not learn from your mistakes or are you simply content to repeat things you know not to be true because you don’t care about facts in the first place?

  388. tango says:

    this is what the ABC in Australia has to say about this IPPC report http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3655197.htm

  389. Bill H says:

    Gail Combs says:
    December 15, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    “Of course we are then back to the question of what caused the shift in pattern from zonal to meridonal. I doubt it is the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere especially when we are told it is uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.”

    =============================================

    Pattern shifts are due to changes in air pressure and magnetism. In other words its the Sun.. Heating and solar wind create the pressure and magnetic changes on a global scale. They affect not only air flows but water flows as well.

    The old adage of follow the money seems to apply. The money is heat and pressure waves hitting the earths atmosphere. If you mix oil and water in a balloon and then mush it back and forth the mixing gives certain flows. Change the mush (pressure points) and flows change.. Add normal rotation and the flows change. Warm the solution and the flows change. Change the magnetic angel to the sun and the flows change.

    Simply follow the heat….and the pressures applied.. these are external forces yet they cause internal ones to change as well. CO2 is not coupled with water so the theroy of the thermal blanket is all wet. (they do not linearly increase and decrease)

    Are not complex systems fun and this is not even scratching the surface of how individual gases react in a centrifuge.

    It will be a long time before we understand totally, this place we call home. Just my 2 Cents,

  390. Richard M says:

    What if GCRs are not the cause of the warming? What if GCRs are just another effect of the real cause? It would explain why GCRs seems to correlate with climate changes over years while no data can be found to demonstrate they are strong enough to cause the changes. We know an active Sun is responsible for changes in the GCRs reaching the Earth. What if something else in an active Sun is the real cause of the warming?

    Here’s a chain of events that could be interesting. A solar magnetic reconnection (SMR) occurs. The SMR creates a pulse that effects the Earth’s magnetosphere. This change then reduces clouds on earth for a small period of time leading to temporary warming.

    One way this might work is the Jet Streams move poleward temporarily. This reduces the percentage of the Earth covered in clouds. The effect slowly goes away in a few days to a couple of weeks.

    It’s also possible some mechanism in cloud formation is sensitive to the magnetic field. That might be the important factor. The main point is to see if reductions in cloud cover correspond to SMRs. I wonder if anyone has ever looked for something like this?

    SMRs generally occur in active areas of the Sun and often result in CMEs. I have noticed that upward bumps in the UAH daily temperature data often occur with CMEs. The more active the Sun the more SMRs will occur over any time period. If this is true any time period with high solar activity will see a warming planet as has been noted throughout history.

    It would be difficult to tease this signal out of the temperature since the immediate impact is short and small looking more like noise. However, the summation of many of these events would have the effect of keeping the Earth warmer. I would hope the data we have collected over the years might be sufficient to examine this conjecture to see is my observation is more than just anecdotal. I am not qualified but I hope someone out there could be.

    If such a correlation could be found there could no longer be any question that the Sun would be responsible for some part of the current warming independent of TSI.

  391. Chris B says:

    Simon says:
    December 15, 2012 at 5:11 pm
    I find it curious that skeptics who don’t believe that greenhouse gases affect climate……

    =============

    I find it curious that warmists who don’t believe that the sun or clouds affect climate…..

    Someday warmists will develop more sophisticated arguments to defend their hypothesis. I think I shan’t hold my breath though.

  392. joeldshore says:

    davidmhoffer says:

    increased hurricane severity => wrong, and they admit it in AR5
    increased hurricane frequency => wrong, and they admit it in AR5
    increased droughts => wrong, and they admit it in AR5
    increased flooding => wrong, and they admit it in AR5
    increased temps => they won’t admit it, but their own data says they were wrong
    declining arctic ice => check. Q: how do flat temps cause this?
    declining antarctic ice => wrong

    Rather than giving these vague statements, can someone please provide us with the exact statements that were made on these in AR4 and the exact statements that are made in AR5? That way we can see how much things have really changed?

    Surely you are not suggesting that Alec Rawls obtained documents under false pretenses and forged other documents?

    Yes on the false pretenses. He obtained the report under the pretense that he would be bound by confidentiality and then he came up with some lame self-contradictory excuse for breaking this confidentiality.

  393. UKSD says:

    Congratulations, some right wing blogger leaked the report. So man made climate change is real. Get over it!

  394. D Böehm says:

    UKSD says:

    “So man made climate change is real.”

    Thank you for your assertion. But next time, show us verifiable, empirical evidence proving that AGW exists. Good luck with that.

    Assertions are nothing more than opinions. So ‘get over it!’

  395. davidmhoffer says:

    joledshore;
    Yes on the false pretenses. He obtained the report under the pretense that he would be bound by confidentiality and then he came up with some lame self-contradictory excuse for breaking this confidentiality.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Oh gimme a break. Gleick got his documents by impersonating someone else. You can argue what you will about how he handled the documents once he had them, but you cannot argue that he impersonated someone else to get them.

    I’m not going to index the entire body of AR4 and AR5 for your convenience. Dr Pielke says they have reversed their position on these things. In part, I’m taking his word for it. In part I’m seeing some of the same things as I work my way through Ch11 which is 129 pages of some rather stilted writing. I had to scurry for the dictionary a couple of times to look up words like “verisimilitude” which would have been easier of the dolts had spelled it correctly.

    They do say on Ch11 that the models have low skill in predicting tropical cyclone frequency and intensity, then they day they have low confidence that there will be increases. In other words, they ain’t got a clue. On ground level ozone they say they have a high confidence that the base line will change over the 21st century from either slightly less to slightly more, but it won’t be exactly the same. When someone writes a document like that who the h*ll knows what they actually said? It won’t be exactly the same it will be either higher or lower? Wow, that there is predictive skill! I predict that tomorrow it will not be exactly the same temperature as it is now, it will be either higher or lower or perhaps about the same by not exactly the same! See, I’m a climaclownist too!

  396. D Böehm says:

    zootcadillac says:

    “I am grateful to Alec for releasing the documents, I feel it was the moral thing to do because despite the IPCC claiming transparency they don’t ever want you to see how they get to where they get to and more importantly what they choose to dismiss in favour of that which supports their pre-disposed position. Every word on those pages is taxpayer funded and everything the IPCC does is in the public interest so we should be able to disseminate their work and freely discuss it despite their insistence that it’s a work in progress. We should be able to contribute to that progress so it becomes an honest evaluation for once.”

    Repeated for effect.

    We the public paid for this! And this is weather/climate info, not nuclear defense secrets, or the Pentagon Papers. Transparency is required, and to hell with self-serving IPCC’s obligations of secrecy.

  397. Werner Brozek says:

    Richard M says:
    December 15, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    What if something else in an active Sun is the real cause of the warming?

    Could El Ninos and La Ninas be influenced by the changes of the solar wind speed? See:
    http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg

    When the wind speed is low such as 1998 and 2010, we had El Ninos, but when the wind speed is high, such as 1989 and 2000, we had La Ninas.

    (This is from the following at Dr. Spencer’s site: Ulric Lyons says:
    December 14, 2012 at 4:14 PM
    El Nino unforced? I don’t think so. Check for the big drops in solar wind speed in 1997 and 2009: http://snag.gy/UtqpX.jpg)

  398. AndyG55 says:

    “So man made climate change is real. Get over it!

    Said with very little proof, just a “WE BELIEVE” statement..

    It’s a RELIGION………………………

    your gods are a myth…

    get over it !!!

  399. joeldshore says:

    davidmhoffer says:

    They do say on Ch11 that the models have low skill in predicting tropical cyclone frequency and intensity, then they day they have low confidence that there will be increases.

    And, that compares to AR4 how exactly? They have always been saying the tropical cyclone frequency is hard to predict. The statement on intensity may be new but I don’t know.

    In other words, they ain’t got a clue.

    So, perhaps the fact that they are so honest about what they don’t know ought to give you more confidence in believing what they say they do know?

    http://climatedepot.com/a/18800/Prof-Pielke-Jr-Analysis-of-UN-IPCC-Draft-report–IPCC-shows-almost-complete-reversal-from-AR4-on-trends-in-drought-hurricanes-floods

    I’d prefer something more than Roger Pielke’s tweets with tiny quotations out of context. I am willing to believe that there has been some change since AR4 in some of these things…for example, the historical record on increases in hurricane intensity…but it would be nice to see a direct side-by-side comparison of what was said in each report rather than vague broad statements about a “complete reversal”. Roger Pielke is not the most credible source when it comes to interpreting / filtering things.

  400. Jack Strawberry says:

    ” Clouds generally have a cooling effect on the Earth’s temperature, because they reflect sunlight. ”

    Has been the response to the report that GCR cause cloud seeding, or cooling due to albedo, but everyone knows water vapor traps more heat than releases it. Cloudy nights stary warm, clear nights cool… So wouldn’t in increase in solar or GCR, create more clouds, create more of a blanket on the earth? Which is it? Clouds redirect energy back into space, or trap it in the lower atmosphere? How do you do the math on that to see which effect exerts more influence in global temperatures??

  401. Alec Rawls says:

    Thomas Edwards says:

    Alex Rawls seems to have missed this vital bit on the next page of the report in section 7.4.5.3: “….” The lesson here is to read the context (which only requires scrolling to the next page) and to take cherry-picked sentences with a pinch of salt. I rest my case.

    Right, I didn’t read the next page. Wait until you see my submitted comment on the paragraph you quoted. That you can repeat it without seeing what is wrong with it is embarrassing. Anybody want to clue Thomas in? His quote from the SOD:

    The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.

  402. zootcadillac says:

    @joeldshore says: I’d prefer something more than Roger Pielke’s tweets with tiny quotations out of context. I am willing to believe that there has been some change since AR4 in some of these things…for example, the historical record on increases in hurricane intensity…but it would be nice to see a direct side-by-side comparison of what was said in each report rather than vague broad statements about a “complete reversal”

    Then Joel, you should be very grateful for the early release of this set of documents as it will allow you to make such comparisons with ease.
    I think the academic acronym is DYOFR.

  403. zootcadillac says:

    @joeldshore says: I’d prefer something more than Roger Pielke’s tweets with tiny quotations out of context. I am willing to believe that there has been some change since AR4 in some of these things…for example, the historical record on increases in hurricane intensity…but it would be nice to see a direct side-by-side comparison of what was said in each report rather than vague broad statements about a “complete reversal”

    Then Joel, you should be very grateful for the early release of this set of documents as it will allow you to make such comparisons with ease.
    I think the academic acronym is DYOFR.

  404. AndyG55 says:

    The beauty is that the reversal of IPCC re hurricanes, storm Sandy, and other “dirty weather” makes catastrophists such as Gore and his disciples look VERY, VERY STUPID !!! :-)

  405. CodeTech says:

    Okay, I haven’t read ALL 409 comments ahead of me here, but I’ve sampled probably most of them.

    SPM page 27, top of page in color:

    There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the Earth System due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance (see Figure SPM.3). {8.4.1, 8.5.1, 8.5.2, Figure 8.13, Figure 8.14, Figure 8.17, Figure 8.19}

    Here’s the bottom line about this statement: If you actually believe that the state of “climate science” is genuinely advanced enough to credibly make such a claim, then you REALLY need to contact me regarding a business opportunity. For a reasonably small investment it is virtually certain that I can make you a millionaire. Really.

    The only thing I see significantly different in this ridiculous parody of “science” is the use of stronger terms for their “certainty”. I know some people are going to weasel this up to a “scientific meaning” of the phrase “virtually certain”, but the phrase is intended to mean there is NO (credible) DOUBT.

    If you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that it is “virtually certain” that human activities, primarily the increase in CO2 concentrations, is altering the climate in a measurable way, then there’s no other conclusion possible: you are a scientifically illiterate moron, with absolutely no concept of how even the simplest model of a planetary atmosphere works. Or for that matter, the normal convection that occurs in the very room you’re sitting in!

    If you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there is “very high confidence” that we have enough understanding of “natural forcings” to make such sweeping and confident declarations, you are a fool and pretty much deserve all the bad things you have coming to you.

    Then again, I’m “virtually certain” that no skeptic is surprised by anything in AR5.

  406. AndyG55 says:

    “Then again, I’m “virtually certain” that no skeptic is surprised by anything in AR5″

    I am. I’m surprised that they left the “no change in hurricane activity” and similar stuff in…..

    but then and again, it is only the draft. ;-)

  407. thisisnotgoodtogo says:

    Steven Mosher

    Bring me a cup of agreement.

  408. Man Bearpig says:

    G Says … (Amongst other things)
    ”Now I will give the four outcomes of those possibilities:”

    You think there are only 4 possible outcomes ? FOUR ?

    Do you happen to write GCM’s for a living ?

  409. Brian H says:

    Just to let you know how deep the rot is, this is an excerpt of a side comment on an unrelated blog (discussing the Tesla Model S, comparing cost to a Miami condo, as it happens) by a well-off reasonably intelligent poster:

    major parts of Miami will flooded or under a major threat of flooding by then do[due] to rising ocean levels. Miami Beach? Gone by the end of the century. Long term, anything on or very near the water in South Florida is a not a very wise investment. Ditto anything ocean-side just about anywhere. Venice here we come!

    Uh, right.

  410. Man Bearpig says:

    G Says ..
    ‘“The world is not warming.”
    It is:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
    It isn’t.
    Overall, It warmed through the 20th Century then it stopped.

    http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=743

    Please can you explain how CO2 has managed to do this then ?

  411. David Jones says:

    Antwerpenaar says:
    December 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm
    “Usual self-serving claptrap. I’m a European taxpayer, and I didn’t actually want the report early – I wanted it issued in a controlled fashion, properly presented. But then we Europeans don’t matter, do we? And besides, this Alec Rawls guy has made his name by climbing over the backs of all the other team members, so that’s OK then.”

    I am also a “European taxpayer” and I resent every penny that goes to the EU and is wasted on “carbon reduction” schemes (as if they had any chance of being effective.) So I think it is important that the process becomes clear and transparent. Presumably you believe everything you are told by your government (and the EU) in a “controlled fashion”? How naive can you be?

    BTW, that chip on your shoulder is showing again!

  412. AndyG55 says:

    “by the end of the century. Long term, anything on or very near the water in South Florida is a not a very wise investment. Ditto anything ocean-side just about anywhere. Venice here we come! ”

    down here (Australia), most property is 2-3m at least above current sea level… and NOBODY is selling, not even Flannery !

    Well , with around 1mm/decade (iirc) registered at Ft Denison (middle of Sydney Harbour), I guess that’s, like, 200+ years at least before anyone has to worry !

  413. davidmhoffer says:

    joeldshore;
    Roger Pielke is not the most credible source when it comes to interpreting / filtering things.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    So read it yourself, document it, and prove him wrong. While you are doing so you can curse them for completing changing both format and terms of reference which makes this an onerous task. Along the way you might ask yourself why they made comparing AR4 to AR5 so difficult.

    In the meantime, I’ve read AR4 and my initial read of a small portion of AR5 suggests Pielke is correct. Buckle down and do some reading yourself, be useful instead of sniping from the sidelines.

  414. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    To BillH

    “Interesting that people who do not understand how Cosmic rays influence our weather and cloud cover tout GCR’s as all controlling. Yet a Coupling of CO2 and Water vapor has been shown not to exist. The alarmists thermal blanket is now a wet blanket with huge holes..”

    Interesting that someone that claims that “…Cosmic rays influence our weather…” doesn’t understand that the science of whether or not GCR’s have any impact is actually the thing in question, with only very limited observational support for the idea so far and good reasons for why it is unlikely to be a big factor. Whereas the observational basis of understanding the effect of GH gases is solid and goes back to the late 1960′s.

    Interesting that someone claims that “…and Water vapor has been shown not to exist…” doesn’t know about the fact that water vapour levels have been observed to have increased over the last few decades.

    Also interesting that they don’t understand that water vapour feedback, no matter what it’s magnitude, applies equally to anything that causes a change in radiative forcing for the planet – more GH gases, Albedo change, any GCR induced changes in clouds. Any warming or cooling effect. Water Vapour feedback will amplify all of them equally.

  415. R. de Haan says:

    This is great, even MSM in the Netherlands reporting about the role of the sun: http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Wetenschap/357162/VNklimaatorganisatie-erkent-belang-zon-bij-opwarming.htm

    Translate with Google Translate

  416. Venter says:

    Zootcadillac, spot on. Joel Shore is not a credible or trustworthy source on any issue related to climate science. Let him DHOFR and spot flaws in RPK Jr.’s argument. If Joel says sky is blue also, nobody would believe it without independent verification.

  417. D Böehm says:

    Venter,

    Exactly right. Joel Shore uses a veneer of science to promote his totalitarian leftist politics, just like any other anti-American communist would do. Perverting science is just a means to an end for him.

  418. Mervyn says:

    In relation to Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols – Is there any chance of obtaining the expert opinions of the following two scientists (1) Henrik Svensmark and (2) Jasper Kirkby?

  419. Bruce C says:

    “The fight between the British and the Germans was intense and fierce in the extreme. It was a deadly grapple. The Germans have been outmatched and outfought with the very kind of weapons with which they had beaten down so many small peoples, and also large unprepared peoples. They have been beaten by the very technical apparatus on which they counted to gain them the domination of the world. Especially is this true of the air and of the tanks and of the artillery, which has come back into its own on the battlefield. The Germans have received back again that measure of fire and steel which they have so often meted out to others. Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

    Sir Winston Churchill – 9 November 1942.

  420. Carter says:

    FAO D Böehm
    ‘show us verifiable, empirical evidence proving that AGW exists.’ and here it is!

    AGU 2012 Fall Meeting: ‘What’s going on in the Arctic?’

  421. thisisnotgoodtogo says:

    Steven Mosher,
    Agreement is what agree-rs do and nothing more. Your landscape is overgrown with topiary pieces.

  422. thisisnotgoodtogo says:

    Mosher, you need to move on. The question is now how to mitigate IPCC. Power is not interested i how loud you can protest about review agreements.
    Now the question is how to best mitigate the IPCC-spawned damage

  423. Pamela Gray says:

    I am anxiously awaiting debate on the affects of ENSO in this report. The Sun provides a bit more in the way of trends (but not that it counts), so many hang their hat on its hot surface. CO2 provides a bit more in the way of trends (but not that it counts), so many hang their tiny little hats on CO2′s tiny and extremely sparsely scattered molecules. But at least its a trend one can look ahead with.

    ENSO’s teleconnections with semipermanent large and random small atmospheric pressure systems (and the resultant cloud effects) is a random walk. Can’t be predicted and the swings one way or the other can’t be mathematically canceled out. To admit this in any context within an IPCC report is the real game changer folks.

  424. stacase says:
    December 15, 2012 at 5:34 pm

    jrwakefield said:

    “So officially the IPCC is going to say there may not be acceleration, and if there is the MOST it can be by 2100 is 33cm. Unless the IPCC is going to claim that there will be an acceleration in the acceleration.”

    And indeed they do, it’s right there in the Chapter 13 Executive summary. They say:

    “It is very likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise during the 21st century will exceed the rate observed during 1971–2010 for all RCP scenarios … with a rate of rise 8–15 mm yr–1 over the last decade of the 21st century) for RCP8.5.”

    That’s an increase of 5 – 12 mm/yr over the next 77 years, and it comes to an acceleration rate of 0.06 – 0.15 mm/yr² which will do nicely. That the current rate of acceleration is a negative -0.06 mm/yr² or so, evidently doesn’t figure into the equation. One has to wonder when this sea change in direction will come. Will it be a Godly enunciation accompanied by herald angels? Well really!

    It looks as though the U. of Colorado’s redefinition of sea level has come to their rescue. (It claims that what it has done is in accord with how other sea level labs do. I wish someone would write a thread in which this claim is examined. I’m dubious.)

  425. richardscourtney says:

    Carter:

    Your post at December 16, 2012 at 7:04 am displays the complete lack of logical ability typical of a warmunist. It says

    FAO D Böehm

    ‘show us verifiable, empirical evidence proving that AGW exists.’ and here it is!

    AGU 2012 Fall Meeting: ‘What’s going on in the Arctic?’

    For the sake of argument, let us assume that the recent reduction to Arctic ice is evidence of AGW
    (it is not such evidence but I am conceding that it is as a method to demonstrate your failure to think).

    In that case then the growth of Antarctic ice is evidence that AGW is NOT happening.

    So, using your reasoning,
    those two pieces of evidence cancel each other.
    Result: you provide no evidence of AGW.

    Richard

  426. davidmhoffer says:
    December 15, 2012 at 12:58 pm
    …………
    declining antarctic ice => wrong

    For clarity, I suggest that in the future you say “sea ice.” Warmists claim the land ice has been declining. (I’m on the fence about that one.)

  427. katabasis1 says:

    Lots of interesting finds to be had in AR5 – I just came across this in the introduction:
    “there is no evidence for global-scale tipping points in any of the most comprehensive models evaluated to date.”
    (section 1.2.2)

  428. Henry Clark says:

    The link between cosmic ray change and climate can be readily seen:

    http://s13.postimage.org/ka0rmuwgn/gcrclouds.gif
    and
    http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg

    (click to enlarge)

    The main narrative and strategy of the CAGW movement remains to deny that cosmic rays variation has any effect, which is a technique to be expected at least until cooling a number of years from now becomes too much to cover up in additional temperature dataset fudging. However, with the number of individual writers involved, not all are consistent in propaganda strategies, and/or the sentence may be left in (since few read more than the hyperpolitical Summary for Policymakers) as a butt-covering tactic, to be taken out of context in future decades to pretend they weren’t vehemently trying to prevent spread of knowledge about the GCR-climate link.

    Regarding this:

    “high level of solar forcing was roughly constant from 1950 until it fell off during solar cycle 23″

    What is mostly a very good article is marred by repeating again the CAGW-movement dishonesty of the “roughly constant” falsehood. After major rise during the first half of the 20th century (and overall since the Little Ice Age), there was a dip in solar activity by cycle 20, and concurrently there was the global cooling scare. The 1960s did not equal the 1950s in solar activity or temperatures, which were not “roughly constant” from 1950. (See prior plot links above). The global cooling scare then through part of the 1970s existed for a reason, as temperature decline then was substantial as seen in the articles, graphs, and data of the time like http://tinyurl.com/cxo4d3l and http://tinyurl.com/cff4qm5 before later revisionism fudged temperature data to hide the inconvenient decline. Next there was very high solar activity (high deflection of GCRs and reduced cloud cover) in cycles 21-22 from 1976 to 1996, the global warming scare. After cycle 22 ended in the late 1990s, average global temperatures peaked in the late 1990s with the El Nino then, and, relative to such, have been flat to declining through now when looked at through satellite temperature data which is not heavily skewed/fudged ( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend ).

  429. katabasis1 says:

    Also worth noting what is said about an Arctic tipping point immediately following:

    “There are arguments for the existence of regional tipping points, most notably in the Arctic(e.g., Duarte et al., 2012; Lenton et al., 2008; Wadhams, 2012 ),though aspects of this are contested (Armour et al., 2011; Tietsche et al., 2011).”
    (also section 1.2.2)

  430. Gunga Din says:

    At Demsmoglog, under the heading: DESMOG BLOG: Revealing the CLIMATE COVER-UP.

    “Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

    There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.”
    ==============================================================
    If only they’d said this before Hansen’s circus act before Congress and Al Gore’s “Inconvienent Truth”!

  431. Mark says:

    People, this headline claiming “game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing” seems to me to be the epitome of disingenous cherry picking of data. Its as if its been decided to just pretend not to notice what other parts of this draft say. For example, the draft summary states:

    “There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the Earth System due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.”

    Can’t a better job be done than this? Is it any wonder that the skeptical crowd is so disparaged within the general science community? I find this so embarrassing.

  432. Gunga Din says:

    (I won’t be able to continue commenting on this post. It’s taking about a second per character for my computer to display what I type.)

    REPLY: That is likely an issue with your computer and/or browser. Probably not enough RAM. RAM is cheap these days, upgrade if you can for an overall better experience and less disk swapping – Anthony

  433. richardscourtney says:

    Mark:

    Your concern troll post at December 16, 2012 at 11:05 am says in entirety

    People, this headline claiming “game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing” seems to me to be the epitome of disingenous cherry picking of data. Its as if its been decided to just pretend not to notice what other parts of this draft say. For example, the draft summary states:

    “There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the Earth System due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.”

    Can’t a better job be done than this? Is it any wonder that the skeptical crowd is so disparaged within the general science community? I find this so embarrassing.

    Your untrue post is a waste of space which asserts untruths from behind the cowardly shield of anonymity. Indeed, your post is the only embarrassing thing.

    The “general science community” does not “disparage” anybody. Indeed, that would be a denial of science which considers information and not who or where the information originates.

    The pseudoscientists who practice so-called ‘climate science” – and their minions – smear anybody and everybody who points out their egregious behaviour.

    The IPCC Reports are political documents and not impartial scientific reports.

    The entire draft AR5 was leaked and the leaker quoted verbatim some parts from it which he considered to be important. The quotations cannot be “disingenuous” if they are verbatim and cannot be “cherry picked” if their complete context is revealed by simultaneous provision of the entire document.

    Richard

  434. mpainter says:

    Mark
    I am so glad that you quoted that particular piece of tripe from the AR5 draft, for the opportunity to expose the sort of science that feeds the propaganda mills. From your post:

    “There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the Earth System due to an imbalance in the energy budget.”

    What does this say? It says that the globe has warmed the last fifteen years, the temperature record be damned. You may swallow something like this, but we are not so easily fooled.
    As far as the “general science community” is concerned, that’s us. You quote from would-be scientists who cannot accommodate their faith-based science to real-world observations.

  435. the1pag says:

    Will the IPCC eventually proclaim “The Sun roasted my homework”?

  436. Mark says:

    Richard,
    I understand what you say about what was presented by the leaker. However, the issue I raised was specifically in regard to the *headline* accompanying this story, and I believe my concern is valid.

    If ALL parts of the draft report that address “enhanced solar forcing” are considered, one cannot with any honesty conclude that the IPCC admission is “game changing”. Drawing such a conclusion based on only one piece of the evidence presented, while conveniently ignoring other pieces, is the very definition of disingenous cherry picking.

    I will say again: no one who presents information in a disingenous fashion, as I believe this headline is most certainly doing, should expect to be taken seriously within the general scientific community.

  437. Carter says:

    FAO richardscourtney

    Well you’ll agree that the world’s climate is getting warmer! How so? Because the heat vents to space have been blocked by co2 at the exact IR wavelengths. As has been recorded by satelites!

  438. richardscourtney says:

    Mark:

    In am copying all of your post at December 16, 2012 at 1:01 pm so others can easily assess if my response is appropriate. Your post says

    Richard,
    I understand what you say about what was presented by the leaker. However, the issue I raised was specifically in regard to the *headline* accompanying this story, and I believe my concern is valid.

    If ALL parts of the draft report that address “enhanced solar forcing” are considered, one cannot with any honesty conclude that the IPCC admission is “game changing”. Drawing such a conclusion based on only one piece of the evidence presented, while conveniently ignoring other pieces, is the very definition of disingenous cherry picking.

    I will say again: no one who presents information in a disingenous fashion, as I believe this headline is most certainly doing, should expect to be taken seriously within the general scientific community.

    Rubbish!
    The headline was an opinion which you may not share, but your post (at December 16, 2012 at 11:05 am) used it as an excuse for propagandist falsehoods. That post was a warmunist rant containing a series of untrue accusations, misrepresentations and smears which I deconstructed in my reply at December 16, 2012 at 11:39 am.

    And you have the gall to use the word “disingenuous” in your response to that deconstruction!

    The depths to which warmunists will stoop never ceases to amaze me.

    Richard

  439. john robertson says:

    @ Mark ,Taken seriously within the general scientific community, This would be the same community whose silence on the CRU emails, Wegman report and IPCC corruption continues?

  440. catweazle666 says:

    >> Carter says:
    December 16, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    FAO richardscourtney

    Well you’ll agree that the world’s climate is getting warmer! <<

    That would be highly unlikely because it isn't.

    Not according to Dave Britton of the Met Office anyway, born out by the latest leak from AR5.

  441. D Böehm says:

    catweazle666,

    Carter is always posting his pseudo-scientific propaganda videos. But like the one above, they are all deconstructed by empirical evidence. Or more accurately, by the complete lack of empirical evidence showing that water vapor has the claimed effect.

    Sixteen years of steadily rising CO2 has had absolutely no effect on the global temperature. That is because the CO2 effect is saturated. Adding more CO2 makes no difference. That window has been painted over so many times that the atmospheric CO2 concentration could be doubled without any resulting warming due to CO2.

  442. richardscourtney says:

    catweazle666:

    Thankyou for your post at December 16, 2012 at 2:11 pm which answers the falsehood from Carter.

    Although Carter’s post was addressed to me, I missed it.

    As you say, there has been no global warming discernible at 95% confidence for 16 years.

    Richard

  443. the1pag says:

    After seeing the latest chart of “UAH Satellite-Based Temperature of the Global Lower Atmosphere” posted for November by Dr Roy Spencer at drroyspencer.com, I can’t understand why the AGW scam promoted by Al Gore and his acolytes at the University of East Anglia can continue to poison the facts about global warming (if any). The satellites in polar orbit measure real global temperature over the entire globe, unaffected by steadily expanding urban heat islands, poorly sited land-based sensors, etc.

    Satellite measurements began in 1979, The November chart shows an increase of only 0.28 deg .C, down slightly from the October temperature, but I am unsure of the baseline at 1979. My own eyeball view of the chart would have a temperature of perhaps minus 0.1 degree C from 1979 until about 1997, before the big El Nino spike that occurred in 1998.

    But after that spike, the global temperature seems to have settled on a new fixed value of around plus 0.2 deg. C since 2002 with essentially no increase since 2002, and maybe even earlier. I conclude that for the past 33 years there has been an increase of no more than 0,3 deg C, which would represent a “global warming” trend of around 0.9 C per century, due to unknown factors related to the Sun, and surly nothing to warrant a huge economic disruption caused by a fanatical U.S. war on carbon aimed at driving up the cost of conventional fuels aimed at unnecessarily reducing their consumption.

  444. Mark says:

    Boehm -

    The planet Venus has a runaway CO2 greenhouse gas effect so intense that lead melts on its surface. Please, tell us again why additional CO2 “makes no difference”.

  445. mpainter says:

    Well, Mark, this post is obviously being taken seriously “in the general scientific community” for why else would you feel motivated to post here? or perhaps you do not feel qualified to be a member of the same.

    Well, the rest of us do, and we take seriously this post, however much you may quibble with the headlines. I’ll wager that you do not raise the same quibbles with such publications as the Daily Beast, or the Guardian, or BBC, or etc.

  446. TrueNorthist says:

    Reblogged this on TrueNorthist and commented:
    Lots of updates being added regularly, so check back often for the latest.

  447. D Böehm says:

    Mark,

    I told you to get educated by reading the WUWT archives. Just search the keyword: Venus.

    But you didn’t do that, did you? No, your mind is made up and closed air tight. You believe in the debunked notion that the temperature of Venus is due to it’s CO2 atmosphere. That is wrong.

    Here, I will help you:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy

    Read the articles and comments. You will find that what you “know” is flat wrong. And if you’re still in doubt, do that keyword search. There are lots of similar articles archived.

  448. TonyG says:

    D Böehm says:
    I told you to get educated by reading the WUWT archives. Just search the keyword: Venus.

    I think you’re expecting too much from Mark. He doesn’t need to get educated, he already knows everything he needs to. Best not take the chance that he might learn something that contradicts what he knows.

    I see this mindset all the time. Too many people have no interest in doing any research for themselves – it’s easier to just let someone else tell you what to think. Too hard to do it for yourself.

  449. mpainter says:

    Well, Mark, it seems that the real question is whether you should be taken seriously. Seems like the verdict is that you should not.
    You come on as one who has uncritically swallowed the alarmist propaganda. Don’t feel bad, others have before you. Anthony Watts, for one.
    The smart ones wise up. You will too, if you ever get tired of feeling foolish.

  450. I guess the PSY-ence is now settled, isn’t it?

    Slightly off-topic, but not by much – I just got to see The Dark Knight Rises, and it seems to have an interesting sub-topic running through it. If we were to wrest power away from those abusing it, could we begin to do the right thing, instead of letting the world descend (or ascend?) into anarchy?

    I believe that we can and do know what to do.

  451. Mark says:

    Today is the first time I have ever posted at this website. Thank you all for the your terribly rude, uncivil, mean-spirited, downright nasty responses.

  452. Matthew R Marler says:

    davidmhoffer,

    Sorry that I got the two Gleick’s confused. Neither had anything to do with ClimateGate, and my conjunction “and” was not supposed to imply that either did, merely that I lumpted the episodes together. There is no exact equivalent to breaking a confidentiality agreement.

  453. D Böehm says:

    Mark,

    Don’t be such a delicate flower. If you want to see truly rude, nasty, insulting comments, pretend you’re a scientific skeptic and comment at SkS, or Closed Mind, or RealClimate, or Tamino, etc. You will see that the responses to your comments are kissy-face by comparison.

    What you are reading here are disagreements with your somewhat wild-eyed statement about a runaway greenhouse effect. We could have a good debate about that, but you don’t want to debate, you simply want to assert. That doesn’t get you very far here. We want verifiable science, not alarmist assertions.

    For an excellent deconstruction of the CO2 effect on Venus, see here:

    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

    Better to learn scientific truth, rather than believe alarmist propaganda.

  454. davidmhoffer says:

    Mark says:
    December 16, 2012 at 4:57 pm
    Today is the first time I have ever posted at this website. Thank you all for the your terribly rude, uncivil, mean-spirited, downright nasty responses.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Mark, in all sincerity, you are on a science blog. The number of PhD’s in the hard sciences that come here every day would shock most people. If you get the science wrong on this site, someone will rub your nose in it. I speak from experience, I’ve had my nose rubbed in it many times (and I’ve done more than my fair share of rubbing too). But when I get it wrong, I’m wrong, I learn from it, and move on.

    In this case, you are wrong. Venus has very high temperatures for a number of reasons, 96% CO2 just isn’t one of the big ones. You’ve been pointed at a variety of articles by well qualified scientists on this matter, all you need do is read them. It wouldn’t hurt you to read up on some basic physics like Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the Ideal Gas Law to better understand these. You’ll also want to understand what being “logarithmic” means and how that applies to CO2.

    I frequently use Venus’ higher temperatures than Mercury to demonstrate that there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect. But I also know enough to understand that the greenhouse effect has many aspects to it, and simply claiming that the concentration of CO2 accounts for all the temperature increase (or even most of it) on Venus is beyond misleading, it is just wrong.

    So either step up and learn, or slink away steaming mad. Up to you.

  455. Manfred says:

    Is it this Steven Sherwood ?

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/sherwood-allen-and-radiosondes.html

    In 2008 he published this strange effort to prove existence of the troposheric hot spot, though it does not exist. Now this strange effort to deny admittance of a solar amplifier, despite being admitted and referenced in his own chapter.

  456. AndyG55 says:

    And mark , incase you are incapable of reading that link..

    The facts:
    at 1000 millibars (mb), T_earth=287.4 (K), T_venus=338.6, ratio=1.178
    at 900 mb, T_earth=281.7, T_venus=331.4, ratio=1.176
    at 800 mb, T_earth=275.5, T_venus=322.9, ratio=1.172
    at 700 mb, T_earth=268.6, T_venus=315.0, ratio=1.173
    at 600 mb, T_earth=260.8, T_venus=302.1, ratio=1.158
    at 500 mb, T_earth=251.9, T_venus=291.4, ratio=1.157
    at 400 mb, T_earth=241.4, T_venus=278.6, ratio=1.154
    at 300 mb, T_earth=228.6, T_venus=262.9, ratio=1.150
    at 200 mb, T_earth=211.6, T_venus=247.1, ratio=1.168
    (Venus temperatures are +/- 1.4K, Earth temp. are from std. atm)

    The actual ratio overall is 1.165 +/- 0.015 = 0.991 x 1.176. It does not vary from the no-greenhouse theoretical value at any point by more than about 2%.

    This multiplier is ALMOST EXACTLY what you would expect from Venus’s closer distance to the Sun.

    Having 97% CO2 in Venus’s atmosphere MAKES NO DIFFERENCE !!!.

  457. AndyG55 says:

    And since very littel solar radiation reaches the surface of Venus, the surface temp is determined by the pressure at the surface.. some simple maths provide for you.
    (coutesy Albert the engineer)

    start quote………
    You can calculate that by using the state equation for perfect gases, which is good for Venus too, because there you don’t have chemical reactions, and you have just 1 gas (almost 100% CO2, plus trace gases: N, argon, etc.).

    Equation is:

    PV = nRT
    where P is pressure in bars (92)
    V is volume in liters (1000)

    n is density/number of moles which is 67000/44 (molecular mass of CO2) = 1522.7
    R is the universal constant of gases = 0.082

    And so, if you introduce magnitudes, you have T = 92 * 1000 = 1522.7/0.082
    92000/ 124.8 = 737 K

    737° K is 464° C, and so you have EXACTLY the mean temperatures you find everywhere on Venus!

    Of course, recorded temperatures, pressures, and gas densities on Venus are not just a fixed one, gases are moving (although very slowly) and ranging from 85/95 bars, 455° C/ 480° C and 62-67 Kg./m^3, but they can fully be explained JUST by huge PRESSURES, huge gas density, and huge atmospheric mass, according to the gas equation.
    end quote…….

  458. A.D. Everard says:

    Don’t sweat it, Gail, I am no fan of the MSM in its current form – far from it – but I know that a change will come and I was expressing the somewhat foolish daydream that they might take this time to hop over to the side of sanity. This whole scam is a massive story and once the break happens, every newspaper and TV channel will wish to have led the way. Even now I feel there must be SOME reporters who are suspicious and/or don’t like to be kept on a leash. I think when the time comes, it will be bloody, the press are not known for their gentleness, especially if they (on the lower rungs – those not actually in the trough but kept under control) feel they have been manipulated. Hopefully we won’t have to wait generations for it it to happen. Cheers! :)

  459. Camburn says:

    D Böehm says:
    December 16, 2012 at 5:06 pm
    Mark,

    Don’t be such a delicate flower. If you want to see truly rude, nasty, insulting comments, pretend you’re a scientific skeptic and comment at SkS, or Closed Mind, or RealClimate, or Tamino, etc. You will see that the responses to your comments are kissy-face by comparison.

    ===========================================

    D Boehm:
    I am sitting here laughing. Comment at SS, or Closed Mind? Good luck on that one. You can post papers on those sites until you are blue, and then you will be banned for sharing knowledge.

    Those sites are propaganda sites. There is nothing scietific about them.

  460. zootcadillac says:

    @AndyG55 very well done but I fear you may as well have posted a picture of a Boeing 747 as it would have had the same effect on our confused friend Mark as your comments.
    That is, both would be equally above his head.

    @Camburn. I think that was entirely the point that my educated friend D Böehm was making.

  461. davidmhoffer says:

    Not to confuse Mark further, but I was just thinking how much CO2 would I need, at the IPCC calculated rate of +1 degree per doubling to get to +900 degrees?

    Starting at 400 ppm, I figure we’d need 1.6 million parts per million to get to just +12 degrees. Yes, for 12 degrees, we’d need an atmosphere that was 160% CO2… but hey, that’s the IPCC numbers, not mine. 900 might be out of reach for CO2 alone….

  462. AndyG55 says:

    zoot,

    Not really my work.. just trying to educated the poor boy by using stuff that has been known for a long time. Trying to make up for his lost education. :-(

  463. AndyG55 says:

    davidmhoffer says:

    and and on Venus there is no H2O positive feedback they can fudge the numbers with, either.….

  464. katabasis1 says:

    There is an aspect here to take heart from – as a result of the content thus reviewed from AR5, many alarmists simply will not know which way to jump. The “extreme weather” backtracks identified by Pielke and others are the most obvious example, though not the only one. As others have mentioned, this is going to be a real doozy as the media narrative runs completely counter to what (it’s so fun to actually be able to use this phrase in this context…) “the science actually says”, based on the “gold standard” that we were told time and again is the IPCC bible(s), backed supposedly by those “97% of scientists”…..etc etc

    Having spent a fair bit of time myself now poring over the AR5 documents it seems the backtracks – and admissions of outright mistakes are already numerous (the one on the ‘tropospheric hotspot’ is particularly good…) – with many more yet to find. So I’m going to put on my LOLLERSKATES and climb into my ROFLCOPTER whilst watching the “Skeptical” Science crew run around desperately in damage control mode catching up and desperately writing “rebuttals”.

  465. oldspanky says:

    Seeing the speed with which various IPCC participants are responding to this leak it is clear that Alec Rawls has gone against Napoleon’s excellent advice that one should never interrupt one’s enemy while he is making a mistake. There is no reason to suppose the final published AR5 report will be any better science, but there is every reason to expect the finessing to be more accomplished now..

    IPCC climate “science” is openly political. The tricks of rhetoric and argumentation apply. Skeptics should hold back until they see the final product. Savaging the finished report will count in the public debate in a way that savaging a leaked draft never will. Rawls has blundered badly..

  466. Danabanana says:

    Nevermind the 10th warmest years occuring in the last 13, eh? head, sand, bury.
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

    REPLY:
    Never mind the fact that prior to adjustments to the surface temperature record being applied, such things weren’t happening regularly. Pop quiz – show a GHCN adjustment in the last 13 that cooled the surface temperature record. – Anthony

  467. D Böehm says:

    Danabanana,

    Your false assumption is that the natural recovery from the LIA is due to human CO2 emissions, when in fact there is NO empirical, testable evidence supporting that belief. But carry on, belief systems have a mind of their own, despite reality.

  468. Galane says:

    The church of AGW is still trying to make the TSI variance look insignificant by only mentioning the percentage of change.

    What should scare the wits out of people is exactly how much energy that “insignificant” percentage of change amounts to in how much solar energy hits the Earth.

    “Oh it’s only a few watts per square meter difference so we’ll ignore it.” Yeah, just a few watts, times 127,516,117,977,000 square meters! That’s the cross sectional area of the “reference spheroid” of Earth, the virtual sphere used by GPS satellites and surveyors.

    At .022 variance from the reference, Earth is actually rounder than the standard specification for a billiard ball.

    Here’s a bar trivia winner. What’s the highest point on Earth? Most people would say Mt. Everest but that’s wrong. The highest point on Earth is Chimborazo, Equador. Huascaran, Peru is pretty much the same height. They are the two points farthest away from the center of the planet.

  469. mpainter says:

    It can be no blunder to put the draft process into the light of day. The blogosphere has operated with deadly effect on the sort of dubious science that gets incorporated into the IPCC reports which, as many have already pointed out, are simply a means to add a veneer of science to a political agenda. It is better to have a view and a voice in the formulation of this “veneer” than to be presented with the “done deed” pushed by a media blitz.

    As we have already seen on this blog, when the drafts are forced into the light, the authors who would make a contrary case are encouraged to speak out ( Forrest Mims, for example) and the issues are aired to a closer scrutiny. The opposition is forced to defend their untenable assertions and thus are exposed. This is all very important and Rawls should be applauded. To those who protest “breach of confidence”, I say that the IPCC should implement the transparency which it proclaims. Let us assist them in that laudable aim.

  470. Danabanana says:

    @D Böehm, Do you have evidence that this LIA recovery IS natural? last time I checked there was a general consensus that we were heading into an Ice Age but then temperatures started going up along with CO2 with no obvious natural variabilty playing a part. I’ll remind you that Earth hasn’t seen 391 ppm (and going up) of atmospheric CO2 for at least 400,000 years.

    Take 2 empty soda bottles. Place place a thermometer in each. Fill up 1 with CO2 (NaHCO3 and vinegar will do the trick) and the other with nothing but normal air. Put them both next to a source of heat like a bulb and check the temperature inside. You’ll see the one with CO2 gets warmer than the other…

    REPLY: WRONG. That experiment has been empirically debunked here. It fails so badly that Gore had to fake the results in post production for his “climate 101″ video. http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

    -Anthony

  471. mpainter says:

    Danabannana
    Here is some sand for your head:

    GISS is notoriously corrupted data and Jim Hansen’s deliberate adulteration of this data is well documented. Such data corruption is Hansen’s modus operandi as one of the foremost of the political scientists and the progenitor of the dubious science behind the global warmers. He is the author of the infamous Venus greenhouse, which see. He is foremost in the broadcast of rank propaganda and panic. Your NASA link is his propaganda site.

    Concerning global warming: a warmer world is to be welcomed because it means higher humidity levels, a shrinkage of deserts, more arable land, and a longer growing season all of which mean more food production. With a population that is expected to double and redouble in the coming century, food production is the real crises that mankind faces. Cooling is the scythe of death for it will bring reverse consequences: less food and mass famine with its attendant grief and upheavals. Formerly it was hoped that CO2 would help achieve the necessary warmth to avert future famine, but this hope has now been blasted by the failure of the climate models that forecast such warming.

    So, stick your fingers in your ears, take a deep breath, bury yourself to the collarbone. Also, you will want to stay away from here.

  472. Danabanana says:

    “It turns out that the thermometers were never in the jar recording the temperature rise presented in the split screen and the entire presentation was nothing but stagecraft and editing.

    I dare you to do the experiment yourself instead of taking someone else’s word. It most certainly works in my Science class….

    REPLY: Oh, please. You fail again teach. Read the entire thing before jumping to conclusions I DID do the entire experiment itself. Several times, with data loggers. I showed my work and the resultant data. What you are experiencing isn’t a real effect of CO2 LWIR re-emission, and if you bothered to investigate it, you’d learn whey you are fooling yourself with a flawed experiment just like Gore. Instead, you spout dogma. – Anthony

  473. Danabanana says:

    “GISS is notoriously corrupted data and Jim Hansen’s deliberate adulteration of this data is well documented. Such data corruption is Hansen’s modus operandi as one of the foremost of the political scientists and the progenitor of the dubious science behind the global warmers. ”

    If you have proof of this to be correct, you could take the case to the Courts? noone stops you from doing this… however, lack of proof will.

    REPLY: As will money. Next you’ll tell us how we are funded by big oil and that isn’t problem – Anthony

  474. Danabanana says:

    “a warmer world is to be welcomed because it means higher humidity levels, a shrinkage of deserts, more arable land, and a longer growing season all of which mean more food production.”

    Your higher humidity levels resulted in a disastrous year for UK crops. Low yields meant we are importing much of the grain this year but is not all bad as it was excellent year for slugs and Blight. Perhaps we should change the diet and eat more slugs, no?

  475. Danabanana says:

    Either your dataloggers are wrong or mine are. Then again, you could have faked your own results to prove yourself right just like you claim others do. I’ll add that I don’t follow Al Gore and that to me it seems that you have a very unhealthy obssesion about this man since you’re always bringing him up.

    REPLY: Ah typical anonymous warmist, when cornered with facts and data they can’t refute, they go down the “faked” and “obsession” route. OK teach, here’s the deal. You are not only wrong, but wildly so. And, I don’t have to accept abuse and accusations from an anonymous coward. If you want to call me out as being dishonest, put your name name to your words, otherwise, per my policy page, I’m tossing you out of my home on the Internet just like I would if you called me dishonest in my own home.

    Come back when you man up with a name and/or your own data – Anthony

  476. Danabanana says:

    I don’t think you are funded by big oil at all but I will say that you are very good at putting words in people’s mouths.

  477. richardscourtney says:

    Danabanana:

    At December 17, 2012 at 6:07 am you say to Anthony

    I don’t think you are funded by big oil at all but I will say that you are very good at putting words in people’s mouths.

    Anthony cannot put words in your mouth because there is a lack of space in it until you remove your foot from it.

    Richard

  478. Ron Richey says:

    “Your higher humidity levels resulted in a disastrous year for UK crops. Low yields meant we are importing much of the grain this year but is not all bad as it was excellent year for slugs and Blight. Perhaps we should change the diet and eat more slugs, no?”

    Danabanana,

    So what is the optimum humidity for crop yield? Better still, what is the optimum temperature for crop yield? And how do we humans achieve that? As a teacher, and now an “expert” on climate change, you should have that information at your finger tips, and be able to explain it to an ignorant student like me.

  479. mpainter says:

    danabannana

    You are more mouth than brain. It is not for the courts, but the world of science and yes, it is well documented, but who needs proof concerning Jim Hansen?

    By the way, you need to get your head together with your hero because his line is that drought is the great food and famine bugaboo while you seem to say that it is not drought but rain that will starve the world. Perhaps you hope to have it both ways. Go to Septical Science to peddle that crap. It won’t sell here.

  480. atomant666 says:

    Awww, Mr Watts banned me from the playground. Says a lot about debate (or lack of it) in this website…

    REPLY: It says more about you when you change fake names and email addresses, instead of examining why you’ve failed to make your case and have abused your privilege of commenting here. So far you’ve used “greenjumper” “atomant666″ “pepapig” and of course “Danabanana”. And you are a teacher? I fear for how you teach your students integrity.

    And, this blog is now approaching its millionth comment with over 133 million views. Therefore, I don’t worry much about lack of debate, but I do care when people call me dishonest when they can’t assimilate what I’ve presented. – Anthony

  481. RobW says:

    Having not downloaded the AR5 yet, I was wondering how many of the citations in this post
    http://errortheory.blogspot.ca/2012/02/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence.html
    have now been included in the AR5?

    Anyone?

  482. davidmhoffer says:

    Danabanana
    Take 2 empty soda bottles. Place place a thermometer in each. Fill up 1 with CO2 (NaHCO3 and vinegar will do the trick) and the other with nothing but normal air. Put them both next to a source of heat like a bulb and check the temperature inside. You’ll see the one with CO2 gets warmer than the other…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Too bad he/she/it has been banned. I’ve made a few bucks betting people about the results of this experiment. Most notably R. Gates who made the bet on this forum and then reneged.

    You see Danabana, your experiment as proposed doesn’t demonstrate the greenhouse effect, it only demonstrates that your don’t understand what the greenhouse effect is in the first place. For your experiment to be a valid representation of the greenhouse effect, you’d need a light source that was almost all high frequency (visible light for example) and almost no infrared. You’d need an object inside each bottle that absorbed the high frequency energy and converted it to infrared. That’s how the greenhouse effect operates on earth, short wave passes through the atmosphere, gets absorbed by earth, which then re-radiates it as long wave which interacts with CO2. Your experiment as proposed models the sun as the source of the long wave which is completely backwards from the real world.

    You’d also have to make certain you are choosing glass that passes through both SW and LW for your experiment to be valid. Good luck trying to find such glass. Then, you’d also have to produce an artificial atmosphere with amounts of CO2 in the hundreds of ppm and two different concentrations of same. Saturating one bottle with CO2 as you proposed entirely changes the physics at play and actually gives a completely different result versus varying small amount of CO2 (say from 400 ppm to 800 ppm).

    So I’ve given you some pretty good starting points to investigate and see if I’m right. If you still want to make a bet or two, well, I’ll need you to promise that you won’t welch like R Gates did. Sheesh, all I wanted was a t-shirt saying I was right and he was wrong.

  483. Gail Combs says:

    Simon says:
    December 15, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    I find it curious that skeptics who don’t believe that greenhouse gases affect climate are more than willing to believe that cosmic rays do…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    HUH???

    What blog do you think you are reading?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/02/spencer-earths-sans-greenhouse-effect-what-would-it-be-like/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/25/a-short-primer-the-greenhouse-effect-explained/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/support-for-the-saturated-greenhouse-effect-leaves-the-likelihood-of-agw-tipping-points-in-the-cold/

  484. Gail Combs says:

    Carter says:
    December 16, 2012 at 7:04 am

    FAO D Böehm
    ‘show us verifiable, empirical evidence proving that AGW exists.’ and here it is!…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Both the 2007 and the 2012 major melts were linked to major storms/ winds.

    How do you explain THIS?

  485. joeldshore says:

    davidmhoffer says:

    So read it yourself, document it, and prove him wrong.

    I am not even saying that he is wrong. I am just noting that it would be nice if he or whoever makes or repeats the claims of significant changes that would constitute a “reversal” between AR4 and AR5 would document them. Such documentation would consist of showing both what was said in AR4 and what is said in AR5.

    I am just being a “skeptic” in the true sense of the word and asking people to provide actual evidence for the claims that they make. Is that so unreasonable?

  486. AndyG55 says:

    danabanana?

    sounds like it might be that ignorant goose from SkS. “Dana cut his weeny” or whatever his real name is.

    for the guys from elsewhere, Queenslanders are called “banana benders” and that’s where John Cook and his boyfriends are based.

  487. Werner Brozek says:

    Danabanana says:
    December 17, 2012 at 3:39 am
    The article you referenced said:
    2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record.

    Technically that is true since 2012, with an anomaly of 0.54 on GISS, would rank it 9th if it stayed this way. Then 2011, with an anomaly of 0.514, would rank 10th. Of course no one says that every year has to set a record in a warming world, but if each recent year is not at least in the top 5, then Earth is merely warm, but not warming. But NOAA places its emphasis on WARMING and not BEING WARM. For lack of warming, see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/#more-75771

    And from NOAA:
    ”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    By the way, what is true for GISS is not true for RSS. With RSS, 2012 ranks 11th so far and 2011 will then be the 13th warmest.

  488. Mani says:

    It seemed clear to me that warming was being hindered by much “cooling” agents of which are also man-made. The big worry I think is that if we stop emitting cooling agents, the temperatures would start to climb at a higher rate. The feedback systems are all involved: ocean absorption, cloud reflectance, plant absorption, etc. Still the bottom line is that concentrations of warming and cooling agents such as aerosols, haze and reflecting chemicals, dust and smoke, are constantly increasing. Mammal breathing and farting is not really an issue here I don’t think. The issue is about trying to maintain harmony with the earth, you people adamant on proving Al Gore wrong must remember that intentions are everything, one must appreciate the ultimate intention of conservation over human error. I am sure there are opportunists on both sides and those must be weeded out. Not everyone is out trying to trick you in some universal conspiracy. To do that we all need to do some soul-searching and focus on the most important thing: the preservation of this planet we are responsible for and all the life and life-supporting systems on it. We see what automobiles and industry do to cities and to people living in them. We see species dying off by changes we are trying to comprehend and the most viable explanation is of greater absorption of heat. The issue is not so much about more storms or more droughts, but their changing patterns. So I say again, as was said a few years ago, it is obvious we are emitting as many cooling agents as we are warming agents, thus one will eventually win over the other or it just seems stupid to put ourselves in such a delicate situation. I don’t see how this leak changes any of this and how many of you see this as a holy grail. I find it sad many of you are forgetting the principles and responsibilities you are supposed to uphold. I hope you heed my words. Good luck.

  489. TonyG says:

    @Mani
    Ever heard the saying “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”?

    Intentions are meaningless if they contradict facts. But making it about intentions is a great way to avoid accountability.

  490. richardscourtney says:

    Mani:

    Your post at December 18, 2012 at 12:34 am says

    I find it sad many of you are forgetting the principles and responsibilities you are supposed to uphold.

    Well, I am doing all I can to uphold my “principles and responsibilities” by opposing the absurd AGW scare which threatens a constraint to the use of fossil fuels which would kill billions of people, mostly children.

    Richard

  491. davidmhoffer says:

    Werner Brozek;
    Technically that is true since 2012, with an anomaly of 0.54 on GISS, would rank it 9th if it stayed this way. Then 2011, with an anomaly of 0.514, would rank 10th.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Omigosh Werner! That means that 2011 and 2012 were the two coldest years in the past decade! The ice age is upon us!

  492. Tzo says:

    [snip. Do not label others as "denialists". Read the site Policy page. — mod.]

  493. Werner Brozek says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 18, 2012 at 7:06 am

    That means that 2011 and 2012 were the two coldest years in the past decade! The ice age is upon us!

    Well not quite. 2008 would rank 13th on GISS. So what we can say, unless GISS has a very warm December, is that three of the last five years is ranked 9th or lower. With RSS, 2012 ranks 11th so far and 2011 will then be the 13th warmest, an 2008 is 22nd. So if things do not change here, three of the last five years will not even be in the top ten!
    Now as for the coming ice age, how do we get that into the next ar5?

  494. richardscourtney says:

    joeldshore:

    In your post at December 15, 2012 at 8:40 pm you say

    I’d prefer something more than Roger Pielke’s tweets with tiny quotations out of context.

    Please TRY to not be an idiot.

    The entire AR5 draft has been leaked so anybody can read all of it. Nothing is “out of context”.

    Indeed, Pielke cites the places from the draft which he quotes and thus makes it easy for anybody to check the “context”.

    The “out of context” falsehood also failed to hide the disgraceful conduct of the ‘Team’ revealed by ‘climategate’. You would have done well to have learned from that failure.

    Richard

  495. joeldshore says:

    richardscourtney says:

    Please TRY to not be an idiot.

    The entire AR5 draft has been leaked so anybody can read all of it. Nothing is “out of context”.

    …Which is why it ought to be easy for someone to do a direct comparison between exactly what was stated in AR5 and exactly what is stated in AR4 and thus provide justification for the “almost complete reversal” claim. I apologize for asking for actual evidence to justify a claim…but you know, I am a “skeptic” in the true sense of the word and actually like to see a claim backed up by evidence. The claim of a complete reversal needs to be backed up by evidence showing exactly what was said before (in AR4) and exactly what is being said in this draft of AR5 and then each person can decide in their view whether the “almost complete reversal” claim is justified.

    Yes, I know that I could go look myself…but the point is that I am not the one making the claim. So, I am not the one who should have to find the evidence to support it (or contradict it).

Comments are closed.