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)

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
pokerguy

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

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…

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

Chapter 2 link broken…

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

Chapter 6 as well….

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).

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

Jim
David P

warming up the popcorn machine…. 🙂

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.

graphicconception

“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.)

Don B

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

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.

Gary Pearse

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.

grumpyoldmanuk

Executive summary link broken.

Rick K

Alec, many thanks for your efforts!

Rob Dawg

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

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

oldseadog

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.

Kerry Eubanks

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

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

Louis Hooffstetter

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).

Luther Wu

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

Otter

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.

daveburton

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

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.

North of 43 and south of 44

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

Larry Ledwick (hotrod)

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.

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.

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.

Dave Broad

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.

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.

kim

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

gnomish

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

David L. Hagen

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!

David L. Hagen

vukcevic
Alex above provides his direct email link. alecATrawlsDOTorg

Dr T G Watkins

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.

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!

Adam

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

eco-geek

IPCCGate
Ah! So that’s why the UN/COP 18 dropped the IPCC.
It’s an unfair COP.

Stephen Wilde

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

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

RobW

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

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.

Stephen Richards

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.

Larry Logan

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.

TRM

Thank you!

Pingo

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

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)

georgi

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

TinyCO2

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