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)

0 0 vote
Article Rating
503 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pokerguy
December 13, 2012 12:00 pm

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

December 13, 2012 12:01 pm

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
December 13, 2012 12:02 pm

Chapter 2 link broken…

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead
December 13, 2012 12:05 pm

Chapter 6 as well….

December 13, 2012 12:07 pm

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).

December 13, 2012 12:10 pm

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

Jim
December 13, 2012 12:19 pm
David P
December 13, 2012 12:19 pm

warming up the popcorn machine…. 🙂

December 13, 2012 12:23 pm

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
December 13, 2012 12:24 pm

“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
December 13, 2012 12:25 pm

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

Editor
December 13, 2012 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.

Gary Pearse
December 13, 2012 12:31 pm

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
December 13, 2012 12:31 pm

Executive summary link broken.

Rick K
December 13, 2012 12:35 pm

Alec, many thanks for your efforts!

Rob Dawg
December 13, 2012 12:36 pm

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

December 13, 2012 12:39 pm

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
December 13, 2012 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.

Kerry Eubanks
December 13, 2012 12:43 pm

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

December 13, 2012 12:45 pm

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

Louis Hooffstetter
December 13, 2012 12:46 pm

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
December 13, 2012 12:47 pm

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

Otter
December 13, 2012 12:47 pm

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
December 13, 2012 12:53 pm

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

Rob Dawg
December 13, 2012 12:57 pm

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
December 13, 2012 12:59 pm

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

Larry Ledwick (hotrod)
December 13, 2012 1:01 pm

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.

Editor
December 13, 2012 1:01 pm

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.

December 13, 2012 1:02 pm

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
December 13, 2012 1:04 pm

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.

December 13, 2012 1:05 pm

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
December 13, 2012 1:12 pm

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

gnomish
December 13, 2012 1:12 pm

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
December 13, 2012 1:19 pm

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
December 13, 2012 1:23 pm

vukcevic
Alex above provides his direct email link. alecATrawlsDOTorg

Dr T G Watkins
December 13, 2012 1:26 pm

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.

December 13, 2012 1:26 pm

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
December 13, 2012 1:26 pm

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

eco-geek
December 13, 2012 1:29 pm

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

Stephen Wilde
December 13, 2012 1:29 pm

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

Editor
December 13, 2012 1:32 pm

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
December 13, 2012 1:32 pm

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

Editor
December 13, 2012 1:38 pm

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
December 13, 2012 1:39 pm

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
December 13, 2012 1:41 pm

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
December 13, 2012 1:43 pm

Thank you!

Pingo
December 13, 2012 1:45 pm

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

Editor
December 13, 2012 1:49 pm

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
December 13, 2012 1:51 pm

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

TinyCO2
December 13, 2012 2:10 pm

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

December 13, 2012 2:14 pm

Alec, this is brilliant. Thank you!
C’mon, MSM, here’s a chance to prove your worth!

Doug Allen
December 13, 2012 2:31 pm

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.

Ian H
December 13, 2012 2:31 pm

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.

Peter in Ottawa
December 13, 2012 2:33 pm

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!

Otter
December 13, 2012 2:34 pm

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

December 13, 2012 2:35 pm

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

georgi
December 13, 2012 2:36 pm

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!

Auto
December 13, 2012 2:36 pm

Desperately slow.
But getting on eor two of the linked documents. S l o w l y.
Maximum kudos to Alec Rawls. Maximum!

georgi
December 13, 2012 2:45 pm

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.

manicbeancounter
December 13, 2012 2:45 pm

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.

December 13, 2012 2:46 pm

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.

December 13, 2012 2:52 pm

“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.

December 13, 2012 2:54 pm

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.

Jimbo
December 13, 2012 2:54 pm

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

mib8
December 13, 2012 2:59 pm

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.)

Kev-in-Uk
December 13, 2012 2:59 pm

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!

D.I.
December 13, 2012 3:00 pm

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?

georgi
December 13, 2012 3:01 pm

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?

georgi
December 13, 2012 3:03 pm

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?

December 13, 2012 3:04 pm

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.

hippo
December 13, 2012 3:06 pm

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

Chris R.
December 13, 2012 3:07 pm

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

georgi
December 13, 2012 3:09 pm

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

Gunga Din
December 13, 2012 3:11 pm

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”.

Kev-in-Uk
December 13, 2012 3:13 pm

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

JJ
December 13, 2012 3:13 pm

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.

georgi
December 13, 2012 3:14 pm

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.

Malcolm
December 13, 2012 3:24 pm

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.

Jean Parisot
December 13, 2012 3:24 pm

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

hippo
December 13, 2012 3:30 pm

Site is down

HM
December 13, 2012 3:30 pm

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

Michael Cohen
December 13, 2012 3:31 pm

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.

Fat Tony
December 13, 2012 3:36 pm

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.

Tapdog
December 13, 2012 3:42 pm

Download issues. Server Error 500.

Editor
December 13, 2012 3:48 pm

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.

December 13, 2012 3:48 pm

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.

ralph Selman
December 13, 2012 3:50 pm

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

D.I.
December 13, 2012 3:51 pm

Science at its best,
What a joke.

Bill Illis
December 13, 2012 3:54 pm

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.

Janef20
December 13, 2012 3:54 pm

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.

Energetic
December 13, 2012 3:56 pm

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

ConfusedPhoton
December 13, 2012 3:57 pm

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!

Antwerpenaar
December 13, 2012 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.
REPLY: Now we know who put the “twerp” in Antwerp 😉 – Anthony

krischel
December 13, 2012 4:10 pm

Mirror? Torrent?

Antwerpenaar
December 13, 2012 4:11 pm

Exactly Anthony – no good answer, so issue an insult, business as usual!
REPLY: It was humor for the humorless. note the 😉 – A

ColdOldMan
December 13, 2012 4:11 pm

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.

December 13, 2012 4:15 pm

Server is down. 🙁
I’m guessing that the Summary for Policymakers can be summarised as

“it’s the CO2 what done it, Guv.”

Gary H
December 13, 2012 4:23 pm

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

hippo
December 13, 2012 4:23 pm

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.

Steve Keohane
December 13, 2012 4:23 pm

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

manicbeancounter
December 13, 2012 4:35 pm

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.

Krazykiwi
December 13, 2012 4:36 pm

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.

hippo
December 13, 2012 4:36 pm

working on making all data available. Keep reading

Steve
December 13, 2012 4:38 pm

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 ).

Editor
December 13, 2012 4:41 pm

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

hippo
December 13, 2012 4:47 pm

@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.

Kev-in-Uk
December 13, 2012 4:52 pm

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

Larry Ledwick (hotrod)
December 13, 2012 4:53 pm

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.

RockyRoad
December 13, 2012 4:56 pm

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.

Dave
December 13, 2012 5:02 pm

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

Manfred
December 13, 2012 5:08 pm

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.

December 13, 2012 5:08 pm

Not a single link worked at 5:07 PST

Reply to  William McClenney
December 13, 2012 5:20 pm

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

Editor
December 13, 2012 5:10 pm

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.

Leo Smith
December 13, 2012 5:15 pm

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

December 13, 2012 5:16 pm

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?

Editor
December 13, 2012 5:22 pm

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.

Abitbol
December 13, 2012 5:26 pm

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.

S Green
December 13, 2012 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?
Exaggeration much?

Manfred
December 13, 2012 5:35 pm

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.

kramer
December 13, 2012 5:41 pm

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.”

hippo
December 13, 2012 5:47 pm

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

hippo
December 13, 2012 5:52 pm

It works for me at 250 kb/s.
Greetings
Hippo

December 13, 2012 5:52 pm

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.

markx
December 13, 2012 5:54 pm

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?)

markx
December 13, 2012 6:02 pm

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.

pat
December 13, 2012 6:04 pm

bravo alec –
here comes the sun….

cui bono
December 13, 2012 6:09 pm

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

cui bono
December 13, 2012 6:13 pm

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.

December 13, 2012 6:17 pm

Should be on BitTorrent by now, no?

December 13, 2012 6:20 pm

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.

hippo
December 13, 2012 6:23 pm

@Crosspatch:
Be my guest.?

JazzyT
December 13, 2012 6:28 pm

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.

theduke
December 13, 2012 6:35 pm

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.

December 13, 2012 6:38 pm

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.

krischel
December 13, 2012 6:40 pm

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

Editor
December 13, 2012 6:41 pm

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.

commieBob
December 13, 2012 6:45 pm

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.

clipe
December 13, 2012 6:49 pm

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),

michael hart
December 13, 2012 6:55 pm

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

December 13, 2012 7:09 pm

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.

krischel
December 13, 2012 7:13 pm

@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

December 13, 2012 7:24 pm

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?

apachewhoknows
December 13, 2012 7:26 pm

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.

apachewhoknows
December 13, 2012 7:28 pm

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

apachewhoknows
December 13, 2012 7:29 pm

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

Jon B.
December 13, 2012 7:34 pm

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

RobertInAz
December 13, 2012 7:37 pm

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

Jolly Roger
December 13, 2012 7:47 pm

Thanks for all your hard work

Alex
December 13, 2012 8:07 pm

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.

gallopingcamel
December 13, 2012 8:15 pm

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.”

James
December 13, 2012 8:33 pm

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.

AB
December 13, 2012 8:52 pm

Great exposure to the sunlight of truth.

Harry van Loon
December 13, 2012 9:01 pm

Finally, and earlier than I expected.

Harry van Loon
December 13, 2012 9:03 pm

But it will take take time to convince the faithful.

John@EF
December 13, 2012 9:05 pm

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.

MattK
December 13, 2012 9:22 pm

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.

Paul Vaughan
December 13, 2012 9:22 pm

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.

Matthew R Marler
December 13, 2012 9:23 pm

Many thanks to hippo. The download was painless.

MattK
December 13, 2012 9:53 pm

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.

Bob K.
December 13, 2012 10:10 pm

“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

Bob K.
December 13, 2012 10:17 pm

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.

Bob K.
December 13, 2012 10:21 pm

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…

kim
December 13, 2012 10:24 pm

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

Energetic
December 13, 2012 10:41 pm

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.

Editor
December 13, 2012 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.

Joe Prins
December 13, 2012 10:59 pm

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.

AndyG55
December 13, 2012 10:59 pm

bit torrent link works well, quite quick.
I’ll leave my computer seeding overnight, but I have slow upload speed.

Total Mass Retain
December 13, 2012 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.

E.M.Smith
Editor
December 13, 2012 11:49 pm

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…

JazzyT
December 14, 2012 12:45 am

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.

son of mulder
December 14, 2012 1:12 am

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.

December 14, 2012 1:37 am

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.

E.M.Smith
Editor
December 14, 2012 1:57 am

@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 😉

richard
December 14, 2012 1:59 am

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”

Peak Warming Man
December 14, 2012 2:16 am

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.

GabrielHBay
December 14, 2012 2:17 am

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

Otter
December 14, 2012 2:24 am

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!

Green Sand
December 14, 2012 2:30 am

“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!

Glenn Tamblyn
December 14, 2012 2:35 am

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.

Dario from NW Italy
December 14, 2012 2:37 am

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

Jimbo
December 14, 2012 2:42 am

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.

Glenn Tamblyn
December 14, 2012 2:50 am

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

richardscourtney
December 14, 2012 2:51 am

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

Glenn Tamblyn
December 14, 2012 3:08 am

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.

My Word
December 14, 2012 3:09 am

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.

Noelene
December 14, 2012 3:13 am

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

mfo
December 14, 2012 3:19 am

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

RES
December 14, 2012 3:42 am

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

jimmi_the_dalek
December 14, 2012 3:43 am

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

Dale
December 14, 2012 3:51 am

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.

December 14, 2012 3:52 am

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.

Man Bearpig
December 14, 2012 4:05 am

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

chinook
December 14, 2012 4:10 am

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.

Roger Carr
December 14, 2012 4:39 am

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.

Barry Center
December 14, 2012 4:50 am

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.

Chuck Nolan
December 14, 2012 4:55 am

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

pat
December 14, 2012 5:13 am

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

Fred Nietzsche
December 14, 2012 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)

prjindigo
December 14, 2012 5:34 am

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

Paul Vaughan
December 14, 2012 5:47 am

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.

D Böehm
December 14, 2012 5:58 am

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.

RES
December 14, 2012 6:06 am

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!

krischel
December 14, 2012 6:11 am

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.!

Chuck Nolan
December 14, 2012 6:12 am

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

December 14, 2012 6:16 am

peejeshare isnt working. no file available

krischel
December 14, 2012 6:19 am

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

December 14, 2012 6:29 am
December 14, 2012 6:40 am

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”

dave ward
December 14, 2012 6:41 am

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!

Darren Potter
December 14, 2012 6:47 am

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.

Kev-in-Uk
December 14, 2012 6:53 am

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!

John@EF
December 14, 2012 6:55 am

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.

Darren Potter
December 14, 2012 6:58 am

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.

December 14, 2012 7:00 am

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

William
December 14, 2012 7:02 am

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…

W37press
December 14, 2012 7:07 am

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

Luther Wu
December 14, 2012 7:09 am

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!

Severian
December 14, 2012 7:16 am

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…

Alan the Brit
December 14, 2012 7:20 am

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!

G
December 14, 2012 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.

FrankK
December 14, 2012 7:40 am

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.

Paul Westhaver
December 14, 2012 7:42 am

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.

December 14, 2012 7:44 am

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

FrankK
December 14, 2012 7:44 am

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 ??

richardscourtney
December 14, 2012 7:56 am

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

G
December 14, 2012 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.

December 14, 2012 7:59 am

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

December 14, 2012 8:03 am

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.

Bill Yarber
December 14, 2012 8:05 am

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

G
December 14, 2012 8:07 am

@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.

John@EF
December 14, 2012 8:22 am

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?

krischel
December 14, 2012 8:29 am

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.

Severian
December 14, 2012 8:31 am

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…

Crispin in Yogyakarta
December 14, 2012 8:40 am

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.

December 14, 2012 8:54 am

@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

Editor
December 14, 2012 8:55 am

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.

AlecM
December 14, 2012 9:00 am

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.

Luther Wu
December 14, 2012 9:07 am

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?

davidmhoffer
December 14, 2012 9:08 am

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.

richardscourtney
December 14, 2012 9:10 am

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

Craig Loehle
December 14, 2012 9:13 am

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.

beesaman
December 14, 2012 9:23 am

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!

Gail Combs
December 14, 2012 9:29 am

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.

Frank40
December 14, 2012 9:34 am

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.

beesaman
December 14, 2012 9:35 am

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!

Ninderthana
December 14, 2012 9:38 am

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.

December 14, 2012 9:42 am

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.

mpainter
December 14, 2012 9:42 am

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.

herkimer
December 14, 2012 9:45 am

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.

Kev-in-Uk
December 14, 2012 9:51 am

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?

charles ashurst
December 14, 2012 9:57 am

“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?

December 14, 2012 9:57 am

@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.

Gail Combs
December 14, 2012 9:59 am

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.

Gail Combs
December 14, 2012 10:00 am

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

BillD
December 14, 2012 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. 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.

Julian in Wales
December 14, 2012 10:27 am

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

William
December 14, 2012 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.
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?

Tzo
December 14, 2012 10:49 am

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

Tzo
December 14, 2012 10:59 am

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

richardscourtney
December 14, 2012 11:06 am

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.