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)
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 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 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
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)
” Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. “
Saying that solar activity does not affect temperatures on Earth is the equivalent of saying that the bumblebee cannot fly since their calculations prove it can’t. Both are a denial of reality.
TSI multiplied by an as yet undetermined cause of magnification can give an interesting match for past temperatures.
Thanks WUWT and Skeptics! It took me a while to find you guys but I I did! I read hear every day. I’m just a guy with a good liberal arts education. What we hear is doom and gloom based on hysterical models and wishful thinking by some pretty sick people. But the science behind the hysteria seems weak or non-existent, No correlation. Falsified models. It’s Orwell’s 1984 living large. Thanks again.
This counts:
Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an (unknown) amplifying mechanism.
End of conversation. Richard Betts, Metoff climate impacts director says we should not worry it’s only a draft and will change before it is completed. There you go. So Don’t worry.
G says:
..So, which is the most preferable pair of outcomes? Do we do something, or nothing?..
This is a policy issue, and not a scientific issue. Technically you could say the same thing about an asteroid strike, an earthquake (the SF big one?) or an alien invasion.
In turn the response might be:
1) to protect against an asteroid strike, we should all store food, dig caves, move away from coastlines (tsunamis) etc, etc – this will provide jobs for everyone!
2) to protect against earthquakes we should move everyone away from earthquakes zones – this will provide jobs for everyone!
3) to protect against alien invasion, we should invest in an extra terrestrial fleet of space ships equipped with laser cannon, photon torpedoes, etc, etc – this will provide jobs for everyone.
…..notice a pattern here?
Oh shit, what have I done – the UN will probably set up 3 more ‘panels’ to investigate these things…aargghh……
Janef20 says:
December 13, 2012 at 3:54 pm
….My interest has turned lately to looking for a link with Islam. It seems to me that environmentalism as an ideology is as significant a threat to Western Civ as Islam. So I am expecting there will be growing political links between the two…..
_______________________________________
You could start here with the Sultanate of Oman and Tony Blair’s close relationship to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi however I do not think Islam really enters into it except as a method for controlling the masses.
” Manfred says: December 13, 2012 at 5:35 pm
solar-denier “.
Okay you made me laugh. But seriously lets not sink to their level. “Solar Ignorant” would be my choice.
Shows there are still a few scientists with integrity. Shows there are still many without however. This could have been prevented if the funding was equally applied to all climate related science but the whole scam has prompted much needed research into an extremely complex issue. It’s such a pity good science has been so debased by advocates for political reasons. Here’s hoping more facts are exposed and the great con dies and with it those who currently keep it alive.
@Bittorrent Seeds:
Please make sure you are using the newer version of the magnet link / seed files.
points out that the new one included the summary. (that was missing in the first one).
Looking at my Bittorrent client, I see 47 seeds on the old one and only 6 on the new one. ( I’m one of each). That means a lot of folks don’t have the new one (yet).
I’m going to stop seeding the ‘old one’ fairly soon, but will be monitoring (and potentially nagging about it 😉 to see if too many folks are still seeding the old one without the summary in it.
Now back to try slogging through the 282 comments that showed up while I was sleeping 😉
” G says: December 14, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Now I will give the four outcomes of those possibilities:”
You missed the most likely one. The government will force a carbon tax on people and pull more money out of the real economy to spend as they see fit on more Solyndra type investments and when the cold hits and stays proving AGW was dead wrong they will not apologize or refund anything. They will find another tax to levy on the people based on yet more lies.
Tzo says: December 14, 2012 at 10:59 am
“Untrue.The world is definitely warming. Your denialist overlords have already abandoned this line of argument”
You are starting to sound somewhat shrill. Take a deep breath, relax, and pretend that you use your real name. That will improve the quality of your comments, and perhaps you then will be able to make a worthwhile contribution to the discussion.
ignore – following comments
@E.M.Smith I have the second one on my server ( though little action )
I will continue to seed the first torrent that I made even though the later one from krischel seems to have been adopted. Not because I put the effort in after people asked for a torrent or because I’m stubborn and got there first so I’ll damn well keep it up 😉 ( that is all in jest ) but because it’s there in the comments and it would be rude to stop seeding now.
torrent available here.
http://www.filedropper.com/ipccar5wg1draftzip
magnet
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:BB10555EC25DCA0C81F3E639AF72F5541670960F&dn=IPCC%20AR5%20WG1%20Draft.zip&tr=udp%3a//tracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80
S Green says:
December 13, 2012 at 5:31 pm
How can it be claimed this is game-changing when the report is quite clear that the Sun cannot explain the observed warming?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is the nose of the camel. At least clouds and cosmic rays and the fact TSI is not the only measure of the sun are mentioned. This is in sharp contrast to AR4
“An Incontinent Truth” that is relevant to the here and now:-
The link below should take you to a chart showing the present (up to Oct 2012) HadCRUT4 trends for the last 10, 15 and 30 years.
http://i49.tinypic.com/b3oifn.jpg
The 10 year trend is slightly negative at -0.04 DegC/Decade
The 15 year trend is slightly positive at +0.04 DegC/Decade
The 30 year trend is significantly positive +0.16 Deg/C Decade, however this metric has, over the last 9 years, reduced by some approx 25% from the high of +0.20 DegC/Decade in Dec 2003.
Also note the last time the 10 year trend was at this level was 1979 and the 15 year trend was last at its present level in 1980.
Whilst the shorter 10 and 15 year trends will be more volatile than the longer WMO 30 year trend, they are indicative. Until the shorter trends break up through the longer trend the 30 year metric can only reduce further.
The trend is your friend, keep an eye on the short term 10 & 15 year, they will indicate the eventual direction of the WMO 30 year trend.
The numbers above can be checked using the “Least squares trend line; slope” facility at wood for trees.
Eg – 10 year trend:-
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut4gl/last:120/trend
commieBob says:
December 13, 2012 at 6:45 pm
…..Good news, ABC News had this three days ago…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bad new the ABC continues the same old same old. The Sun and TSI are not mentioned.
Trying again – for some reason I didn’t the the subscribe email.
Harry van Loon says:
December 13, 2012 at 9:03 pm
But it will take take time to convince the faithful.
__________________________________
At this point I think it will take a mile of ice sitting on NYC and you would still have Al Gore claiming it is because of global warming.
Total Mass Retain says:
December 13, 2012 at 11:42 pm
Perhaps the author should dust off his undergraduate thermodynamics textbooks and look up the term “thermal equilibrium”. He might then realise that comparing the Sun-Earth system with a pot heating on a stove is a rather stupid comparison. That rather undermines his credibility in interpreting this draft report.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it does not.
link 1 (Contains link to pdf of peer-reviewed paper)
link 2 It was known in 1974 and forgotten. (aka shoved under the rug)
Yet another ever-vigilant VDOS* swoops in for the rescue… Thanks Alec!
*Volunteer Defender of Science
G:
I am replying to your post at December 14, 2012 at 12:18 pm.
It really saddens me that anybody could be so misled as you say you are about AGW.
I wrote
That is true. But you have replied
Of course there are certain facts. For example, I am older today than I was yesterday.
I gave you empirical measurements with links to the papers which present them.
Those measurements are facts and their estimated confidence(s) are their certainty. Theories which fail to agree with empirical data are rejected or amended (this is called the ‘scientific method’).
I said I get my information from the IPCC and source documents. Your lack of logical ability is demonstrated by your use of the logical fallacy of ‘Argument from Authority’ which you again present here concerning “the viewpoint of the IPCC” (despite my having told you of that fallacy). If the empirical data refutes their “viewpoint” then their “viewpoint” is wrong. I provided you with the empirical data: it shows the “viewpoint of the IPCC” is wrong.
There is nothing “puzzling” in recognising an authority is wrong when the empirical data shows the authority is wrong.
You say
No. Atmospheric CO2 concentration follows global temperature at all time scales. At present levels of atmospheric CO2 increases to the CO2 have no significant effect on global temperature.
It seems you are unaware that the IR absorbtion of CO2 in the atmosphere is constrained to only two narrow bands with almost all being in the 15 micron band. These bands are so near to saturation that they only increase their absorbtion by band broadening.
Think of light (i.e. visible radiation) entering a room through a window. If you put a layer of dark paint over the window then much light is absorbed by the paint and, therefore, does not enter the room. Add another layer of paint and more light is absorbed by that layer, but not as much as by the first layer. Similarly for each additional layer of paint.
The IR emitted from the Earth’s surface is trying to pass the ‘window’ of the atmosphere to enter space. Adding more CO2 to the air is like adding more paint on the window that has seven layers of the paint. Each unit addition of CO2 has less absorbtion than the previous unit addition: this reducing effect is logarithmic.
So, as the empirical measurements which I cited for you show, at present levels of atmospheric CO2 increases to the CO2 have no significant effect on global temperature.
I said
That is true.
You assert that
Frankly, that is ridiculous! The oceans are alkaline, not acidic.
There is no possibility of having measured that variation of ocean pH from AGW and from increased atmospheric CO2 to anything like the required accuracy to know if it has varied at all.
Also, I suspect you don’t know that a change to ocean surface layer pH (e.g. from undersea volcanic sulphur emissions)of an unmeasurably small 0.1 would have induced all the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution whether or not there were any anthropogenic CO2 emission. I doubt the sulphur change has happened, but that possibility alone refutes your assertion.
You then assert as discernible effects of AGW “Glacier retreat” and “Sea level rise”. Those assertions are both wrong.
The glaciers are retreating back to where they were in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), and their retreat is revealing human settlements that existed in the MWP. Humans had nothing to do with the cooling from the MWP to the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the warming from the LIA progressed for centuries before the industrial revolution.
As I previously told you, there has been no acceleration to the rate of sea level rise which has existed for the last ten thousand years.
I said
And you have replied
Sorry, but you are wrong. You need to define what is a “natural average”, then read the source which you cite, and then compare the two.
Incidentally, I cited to you a paper I co-authored which uses that source for its data so I am very familiar with it.
I said
And you have replied by citing the laughable GISS compilation saying
That data set is severely corrupted by unexplained ‘adjustments’.
Anyway, the draft IPCC AR5 shows the lack of warming over the last 16 years which I stated. Have a look at the new WUWT thread to see the lack of warming shown by the draft IPCC AR5
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/
I said
And I cited a peer reviewed study of which I was a co-author.
Your grossly offensive reply makes no mention of our study and says
Assertions from a climate porn blog and a circular argument based on isotope studies which do not mention my work are NOT a justification for rejecting my work.
The rest of your assertions are equally fallacious but your gross insult to my work has enraged me such that I can’t be bothered to refute them. However, you ask me a political question which demonstrates your motivation so I will answer that.
You assert and ask me
There is no evidence for the AGW-hypothesis; none, zilch, nada. All we have are computer model simulations which are known to be wrong.
But we do know what “transition to a low carbon economy” means. It requires reduction to fossil fuel usage which would kill billions of people, mostly children. This would pale into relative insignificance the combined activities of H1tler, Stalin and Pol Pot.
The Precautionary Principle decrees that we should NOT take actions which would kill billions of people on the basis of a hypothesis which has no supporting evidence and merely because it has been described using computer games.
Richard
The rush is now on for the next bogus geoengineering boondoggle, blocking out the sun.
How long before the obligatory “it’s worse than we thought” melting hockey stick appears?
How long before Solar Trading replaces Carbon Trading?
One thing is certain the public at large will be paying for “hot air” for centuries to come.
I’m really quite disappointed at the number of drive-bys here recently. As someone who won’t accept the global warming mantra I can often be discouraged by the persistent abuse, be it in the small form ‘science-denier’ or the worse ‘Big oil shill’ and up to ‘you are killing our grandchildren’ but I keep heart that the observation will continue to diverge from the prediction and someone will eventually shout loud enough… “but he’s not wearing any clothes”.
It’s a shame that here at WUWT that people feel the need to pipe up with their opinions and comments yet when met with polite responses that might counter their argument they fail to return.
Scepticism is the very foundation of science. If you are not sceptical you can’t be a scientist. If you have a position be prepared to debate it and be prepared to accept that you may be wrong. I’ve done that all my life and it’s likely the primary reason I’ve ended up here in rare conversation with people much better educated than I.
I might have to lay off the posting tonight though. Comments may start to ramble as I’ve had a few hot toddies to combat the manflu 😉
Perhaps someone can help me understand Rawls’ theory a bit better. He says that the recent high level of solar magenetic activity has caused the atmosphere to heat, akin to a stove on high heating water gradually. However, my impression is the emperical evidence for the relationship between solar magnetic activity and atmospheric temperature is a correlation between their short term fluctuations. This seems contradictory to me, that the system could at the same time both quickly equilibriate to solar magentic activity changes, and equilibriate very slowly.
I think either: 1) I’m really misunderstanding the argument or 2) the theory needs to assert that two unique processes are invilved, one which responds to magnetic activity quickly, and another which responds slowly.
oldseadog says:
December 13, 2012 at 12:41 pm
The chapters take AGES to load and no MSM reporter is going to wait to read them unless they are already sceptical, and we know how few of those there are.
Also there is no “e-mail” link at the end here and I don’t know how to forward this post to a newspaper news desk any other way.
oldseadog, not sure I understand the issue. I simply use to mark the line up in the browser, copy it with pressing control-C and paste it in the mail “like this below” with control-V:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/
not sure if I am telling a very simple stupid thing and missed your question…
William says:
December 14, 2012 at 10:34 am
I must admit, to becoming interested, in the political and propaganda posturing by the extreme AGW movement and the IPCC.
The skeptics, it appears have scientific analysis. observations, and solar change on our side.
…
How will the general public response and what will be the US government response when it becomes obvious that the IPCC and hundreds of climate scientists where absolutely incorrect, that the science was manipulated?
It’s about time to come, the gravy train has gone long enough, each doomsday religion fades with the time.
BillD says:
December 14, 2012 at 10:09 am
So, the author, Dr. Sheffield, completely disagrees with Mr Rawls as to the meaning of what he wrote. In the summary of Chapter 7, one can read that the effects of variation in solar radiation are negligible
You seem to miss the whole point.: “The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is.”
Antwerpenaar says:
December 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Usual self-serving claptrap. I’m a European taxpayer, and I didn’t actually want the report early – I wanted it issued in a controlled fashion, properly presented. But then we Europeans don’t matter, do we?
hm, dear Antwerpenaar, how comes you talk in the name of “the europeans” and not your name? And besides, what stops you from reading the report one year later when it will come to you “in a controlled fashion” and let the others see more detail now if they want to? You do not have to click the link and read? or was somebody behind you as explained above pushing you to click next so you had to read all in a disorganised way?
William says:
December 14, 2012 at 7:02 am
William, thank you for the post. It is actually one of the features I love at WUWT to have posts commenting the blog post that add a lot of value to the discussion, many time more valuable that other fulll blog posts elsewhere.
In your post you speak of a 1470 years cycle, whereas in the interview linked Sebastian Lüning speaks of a superposition of a 1000 years cycle and a 2300 years cycle which could give the statistical effect of a 1500 years cycle.
Can you elaborate more on this?