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'

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

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 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?

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…

@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

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.

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.

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.

vukcevic says: @ur momisugly 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.

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!

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.

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.